# Reading > General Literature >  British Literature vs. American Literature

## Brendan Madley

Which has provided great work? Britain: Shakespeare, Dickens, Doyle, Eliot, Hardy etc. or The United States: Steinbeck, Twain, Melville, Fitzgerald etc. I know many will say British and so would I, but I want to hear your opinions.

----------


## PeterL

Both countries have produced great literature. If you want to see which has prodduced more or better literature, then it is partly a mattter of taste, and literature has been produced in Britain for a longer time than the US has had writers.

----------


## JBI

I prefer the language in British, specifically English literature far more than in American literature. Though that is not a fair statement, since Britain has been writing books for a longer time than the States. Modern literature however is a toss up. For science fiction and fantasy I would say The United States wins hands down, but for more literary work probably Britain. For work in general though, right now I do not consider either of them to be "The Best".

----------


## WriterAtTheSea

Hello!!! Let's not forget Jane Austen!!

----------


## McGrain

Like you say, opinions, but i'd say that the works of Shakespeare are worth more than the entire output of American literature.

No-one's touching the US for movies, though.

----------


## zigzig20s

I think I tend to like American literature better actually...probably because it's more foreign to me - a bit of escapism.

----------


## ennison

One writer may be better than another, one text more impressive than another but the literature in one political entity compared with another can only be different. The idea of Britain as a political entity is archaic as well as limited since it only existed from the first decade of the eighteenth century until the third decade of the twentieth.
America has produced a stupendous quantity and quality of literature

----------


## McGrain

> The idea of Britain as a political entity is archaic as well as limited since it only existed from the first decade of the eighteenth century until the third decade of the twentieth.
> America has produced a stupendous quantity and quality of literature



I'd agree with all of that, but Britain as a [I]cultural[I] entity can surely be treated as a linear entity.

----------


## kilted exile

> I'd agree with all of that, but Britain as a [I]cultural[I] entity can surely be treated as a linear entity.


I would suggest that britain is even less of a cultural entity than a political one. There are as many cultural differences as similarities.

----------


## McGrain

> I would suggest that britain is even less of a cultural entity than a political one. There are as many cultural differences as similarities.


OK, yeah, but in the sense that it can be traced back and beyond the 18th century political cut-off suggested above. If you feel like it you can, as you say, cut of any sense of cutlural lineage due to divergance in its history, but you could also choose to follow it all the way back, no? I mean it is not really controversial to suggest that there is such a thing as British literary history - as opposed to political history - even if it would be a massive undertaking to trace it.

----------


## aeroport

> The idea of Britain as a political entity is archaic as well as limited since it only existed from the first decade of the eighteenth century until the third decade of the twentieth.


But are we considering only the British Lit which falls into this category? This would exclude Chaucer, Shakespeare, Spencer, Sidney, the _Beowulf_ poet, Milton, and several others from the question who are, I would venture to say, some of Britain's best writers. 




> America has produced a stupendous quantity and quality of literature


Quite so. I do not really think the two are comparable, as each has went through a great many "phases". I am impressed, though, that, given its comparatively short existence, America has dashed off such an amount as it has of really excellent literature. It has really only been about 200 years. We've finally reached the early 1800s in my American Lit class, beginning with Emerson, Thorough, and Fuller, and I have to say it is a great relief to be reading something other than preachers' diaries and accounts of the captives of Native Americans (also generally church-related folks, as they were the only ones who could read and write...). In my own opinion, the quality of this country's literature increased considerably when the religious influence began pulling itself into the background, beginning with Franklin and Jefferson, then the "Transcendentalists", and then going on to Irving, Melville, Poe, and the like (and finally James!). This gives Britain about four-hundred years on us at least, plus the Old and early-Middle English stuff. I do think it safe to say that, in general (though obviously with several exceptions), British literature - particularly from the Victorian era - is massively satirical. I'm not sure American writers ever were so concerned with social matters in the same way - with that one enormous exception of the slavery question. Perhaps I'll find more evidence to the contrary as the semester progresses...

----------


## livelaughlove

I definitely think American lit has a more contemporary taste, while English lit is more classic & refined. I love both for different reasons. We shouldn't forget the great poets, either-- Frost & Sylvia Plath, Wordsworth & Keats,etc.

----------


## starbuck

I defintely agree that British literature overpowers American lit. I have taken courses in both literatures and British is FAR more interesting and in depths than American literature. There is no American Shakespeare, Austen, or Bronte..period.

----------


## Pensive

> I defintely agree that British literature overpowers American lit. I have taken courses in both literatures and British is FAR more interesting and in depths than American literature. There is no American Shakespeare, Austen, or Bronte..period.


There has never been a British Steinbeck, Poe and Irving, too.  :Tongue:  I personally can't seem to decide whether I find American Literature better or British Literature attracts me more, but I think that calling British Literature "far more interesting than American Literature" is something I would not feel comfortable to say with all great American writers around. Anyway, that's a matter of opinions.  :Smile:

----------


## kilted exile

Regarding "British literature" and what it includes (whether to include chaucer, shakespeare etc) I think it would be best to use the term "Literature from the British Isles" instead. I know this may seem pedantic but it is a more fitting term.

----------


## McGrain

> Regarding "British literature" and what it includes (whether to include chaucer, shakespeare etc) I think it would be best to use the term "Literature from the British Isles" instead.


Yeah, I will go for that. I'd also like to add that it's very, very difficult to claim a lot of the modern greats solely for Britain - the big example is Rushdie. Can you be absolutley convinced that he doesn't come in under "eastern"? Especially his newest one, "Shalimar The Clown" (exellent), reeks of east. 

It should also be said that American work has probably overhauled Literature From The British Isles :Wink:  in one area, weird literature. As is mentioned above, UK has no Poe and Lovecraft is probably that great man's equal. On a long enough time scale US probably catches UK in many areas. However, and i'm sorry to harp on, what about Shakespeare? I really don't want to ram it down anyone's throat, but if you line up American literature's greatest, say, 12 works, he probably has them matched on his own. No?

----------


## Virgil

> I defintely agree that British literature overpowers American lit. I have taken courses in both literatures and British is FAR more interesting and in depths than American literature. There is no American Shakespeare, Austen, or Bronte..period.


Well, did you consider that the US is only a little more than two hundred years old? Frankly if you want to just focus on one century, the 20th century, I think the US stacks up quite well. William Faulkner is the greatest novelist of the century and T.S. Eliot is definetely the most important poet of the century. 

But I can't stand this my literature is better than your literature attitude by anyone. Look at how many fine works are coming today from India and other places not in the US or Britain. It all strikes me as childish. 

Of course I am the old man here.  :Wink:   :Tongue:   :Tongue:

----------


## Scheherazade

> Well, did you consider that the US is only a little more than two hundred years old?


Of course, it is also possible to argue that American Literature has the same origin as the British Literature (common language) but later on branched out as a different entity.


> Of course I am the old man here.


Ah, there comes the acceptance!  :Tongue:

----------


## McGrain

> Well, did you consider that the US is only a little more than two hundred years old? Frankly if you want to just focus on one century, the 20th century, I think the US stacks up quite well. William Faulkner is the greatest novelist of the century and T.S. Eliot is definetely the most important poet of the century.


I agree with all of this APART from your remark about Faulkner. I would say that Rushdie and Greene both measure up quite smartly to your man.

----------


## Virgil

> Of course, it is also possible to argue that American Literature has the same origin as the British Literature (common language) but later on branched out as a different entity.


Oh that's for sure Scher. My point was that British lit can go further back with more writers.

----------


## aeroport

> There has never been a British Steinbeck, Poe and Irving, too.


Or James!!

----------


## Niamh

Both countries literature is great in itself. Both have their differences which is possibly influenced by their different lifestyles etc. Because of this i think it is very hard to decide which is better as both are great in their own way. I also dont think it is right to say one is better than the other. All literature is great literature.

Kilted, "literature of the british isles". I see where you are coming from.

----------


## Virgil

> Or James!!


 :FRlol:  How do we count James? He lived a good deal of his life in England and ultimately got a British/English (? don't know how that works) citizenship.

His works strike me as American, though

----------


## ennison

'Regarding "British literature" and what it includes (whether to include chaucer, shakespeare etc) I think it would be best to use the term "Literature from the British Isles" instead. I know this may seem pedantic but it is a more fitting term.'
I agree but then we would see that as the best definition, you and I.
Chaucer Shakespeare et al are English - not British (however you define it) and the latter was definitely a 100&#37; English nationalist.... not as mad and bad as Spenser though. 
Dunbar who wrote also in English was Scottish and though he is one of the foremost Scots makars he is nowhere near as good as about twenty other Scottish poets who did not use English at all.
The rather happy note about English literature written by the English is that despite the huge dumbing down of England's culture there are still excellent English writers and the unhappy note for Scotland is that outside of Massie and one or two others the majority of modern Scottish writers are freak show exhibitionists.

----------


## kilted exile

> I agree but then we would see that as the best definition, you and I.
> Chaucer Shakespeare et al are English - not British (however you define it) and the latter was definitely a 100% English nationalist.... not as mad and bad as Spenser though. 
> Dunbar who wrote also in English was Scottish and though he is one of the foremost Scots makars he is nowhere near as good as about twenty other Scottish poets who did not use English at all.
> The rather happy note about English literature written by the English is that despite the huge dumbing down of England's culture there are still excellent English writers and the unhappy note for Scotland is that outside of Massie and one or two others the majority of modern Scottish writers are freak show exhibitionists.


Quite, and on a related note a poem by a guy named shug (Hugh MacDairmid)

My Quarrel with England

And let me pit in guid set terms
My quarrel wi' th' owre sonsy rose,
That roond about its devotees
A fair fat cast o' aureole throws
That blinds them in its mirlygoes,
To the necessity o' foes.

Upon their King and System I
Glower as on things that whiles in pairt
I may admire (at least for them),
But wi' nae claim upon my hert,
While a' their pleasure and their pride
Ootside me lies - and there maun bide.

Ootside me lies - and mair than that,
For I stand still for forces which
Were subjugated to mak' way
For England's poo'er, and to enrich
The kinds o' English, and o' Scots,
The lesat congenial to my thoughts.

Hauf his soul a Scot maun use
Indulgin' in illusions,
And hauf in gettin' rid o' them
And comin' to conclusions
Wi' the demoralising dearth
O' onything worth while on Earth....

_From A drunk Man Looks on the Thistle 1926_

----------


## Brendan Madley

> There has never been a British Steinbeck, Poe and Irving, too.  I personally can't seem to decide whether I find American Literature better or British Literature attracts me more, but I think that calling British Literature "far more interesting than American Literature" is something I would not feel comfortable to say with all great American writers around. Anyway, that's a matter of opinions.


Ha, Ha. You're joking right. In the public consciousness and for very good reason, Poe, Steinbeck and Irving or any other American author DOES NOT compare to people like: Doyle, DICKENS, Eliot, Archer, Trollope, Hardy, Byron, etc. Please note that I have used British authors that have lived only since the independence of America; I have done so to prove that no American alive ever, which technically speaking is since 1776, can come close to that thank you, which quite throws your "The British Isles has been around longer" off completley now as America had no response to Victorian writers. They, as a select group of Britain's literature history, far surpass anything America had or has today. Thank you.

And I would like to state that, yes, I mean by Britain the British Isles, and I hope I am not offending any Irishmen. From now on please regard the "Britain" of the thread title as the British Isles, which were collectively Britain once anyway.

----------


## aeroport

> Ha, Ha. You're joking right. In the public consciousness and for very good reason, Poe, Steinbeck and Irving or any other American author DOES NOT compare to people like: Doyle, DICKENS, Eliot, Archer, Trollope, Hardy, Byron, etc. ...
> no American alive ever, which technically speaking is since 1776, can come close to that thank you,


Well, um, I hate to be redundant here, but actually yes, James can, and does, and is quite possibly, as such things go, "greater" than any author you've hitherto mentioned. He's obviously somewhat exceptional for the country, both for his genius alone and for his prolificity. But he counts, and he counts for a great deal. Certainly he was influenced a great deal by the Victorian authors, but no one before could have done what he did. Of course, we are also omitting a whole host of other American writers: Dickenson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Bishop, Frost, Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, Thomas Wolfe, Sylvia Plath, William Dean Howells, Ezra Pound, Thomas Pynchon, Walt Whitman, Nabokov, Hemingway, Dos Passos, Faulkner, Eugene O'Neill, etc., etc... Hugely important many of these were.

EDIT
I think I probably made "prolificity" up. Not seeing it in my pocket dictionary. Sorry.

----------


## McGrain

If we're including Ireland, what about James Joyce? He's the one isn't he? I know he's not as fashionable since "post post-modernism" (!), but he was surely the most influencial of them all, a proper monster.

Getting far to into this for my own good.

----------


## Pensive

> Ha, Ha. You're joking right. *In the public consciousness and for very good reason,* Poe, Steinbeck and Irving or *any other American author DOES NOT compare to people like: Doyle, DICKENS, Eliot, Archer, Trollope, Hardy, Byron, etc.*


First of all, I don't agree with what you have said over here. I think that American Literature is fairly popular as well, even in public opinion. As Jamesian has mentioned above that there is a great deal of good American writers who can compete all these British writers you have mentioned. I don't want to offend, but your over the top, fanboyish, head-in-the-mud obstinate defense of the phrase that "American writers can not be compared to British writers in a matter of quality" is making this thread look like a joke. 

And anyway, your post in the above of this thread asks *our* opinions. Why start a thread when you can't bear other people's opinions?




> Which has provided great work? Britain: Shakespeare, Dickens, Doyle, Eliot, Hardy etc. or The United States: Steinbeck, Twain, Melville, Fitzgerald etc. I know many will say British and so would I, *but I want to hear your opinions.*


We don't have ramble on about how Shakespeare has been the best writer ever because the critics say so. We don't have to go on talking about how much good Hardy's works were, because three people out of four said so. Public opinion does matter, and even though I stick to the fact that American Literature is quite popular in the public (the popularity of its grammar also indicates that), but still I think that *we do not have to base our opinion on the opinion of others* and this is what you want us to do probably. 




> Please note that I have used British authors that have lived only since the independence of America; I have done so to prove that no American alive ever, which technically speaking is since 1776, can come close to that thank you, which quite throws *your* "The British Isles has been around longer" off completley now as America had no response to Victorian writers. They, as a select group of Britain's literature history, far surpass anything America had or has today. Thank you.


Please, don't accuse me of things I have not even mentioned in any of my posts.

----------


## manolia

> Well, did you consider that the US is only a little more than two hundred years old? Frankly if you want to just focus on one century, the 20th century, I think the US stacks up quite well. William Faulkner is the greatest novelist of the century and T.S. Eliot is definetely the most important poet of the century. 
> 
> But I can't stand this my literature is better than your literature attitude by anyone. Look at how many fine works are coming today from India and other places not in the US or Britain. It all strikes me as childish. 
> 
> Of course I am the old man here.




I agree. Why should we compare literature. Wherever there are human beings 
there is good literature and artistic creation. Besides if you insist to compare them you can't because it is pointless to compare dissimilar things (meaning that every nation has its way to express itself-or even better every individual has a different way to express himself not to mention grand personages like Poe or Dickens) Moreover some of the authors mentioned here have lived in different eras and write about different genres of literature. I like both american and british literature. They have contributeted greatly in the advance of human intellect.

----------


## McGrain

> I agree. Why should we compare literature. Wherever there are human beings 
> there is good literature and artistic creation. Besides if you insist to compare them you can't because it is pointless to compare dissimilar things (meaning that every nation has its way to express itself-or even better every individual has a different way to express himself not to mention grand personages like Poe or Dickens) Moreover some of the authors mentioned here have lived in different eras and write about different genres of literature. I like both american and british literature.


I don't think anyone here would say they dislike either American or literature from the British Isles :Wink:  , what's to dislike about King Lear or Catcher In The Rye? But it's quite good fun to compare and contrast the two, to answer your first question, and it certainly is possible. Obviously, perspective is crucial, but if you can say Dean Koontz isn't as good as Dostoyevsky (which i think is a given...?) why can't you say that American lit is better than British? Just because two people come from different eras or places doesn't mean they one can't be more talented, gifted, hard-working than another, and that those differences can't manifest themselves as a slight edge in quality of one's work over the other's. Because we're talking about the greatest men and women ever to have written, the creations of these individuals is really all we're talking about at the moment.

But mostly it's just fun! (Especially hearing the American's explain why their VERY talented writers have contributed as much as Shakespeare, Rushdie, Chaucer, Joyce etc., etc.) I like what you have to say but maybe lighten up a wee bit?

----------


## kilted exile

> In the public consciousness and for very good reason


The term public consciousness always interests me. Who opinions are included in the "public consciousness" you refer to?

The world as a whole? I think there is enough in this thread already to show this is not the case.

Perhaps you mean the British public? I know where I grew up the majority of people would have no idea about the subject and any opinion they held would be the result of bias.

Maybe you mean the "educated" British public (at which point it really stops being the "public" and is a more private group)? Then of course there is the question of level of education, probably to have enough knowledge on American literature it would require to have read more of it than appears on the high school curriculum which is dominated by the works of writers from the UK. Again this public group is getting smaller.

Do you mean by the school boards that decide what texts should be studied in schools in the UK? A private group if ever there was one.

I have my worries that by public you really mean "little Englanders"

----------


## McGrain

> I have my worries that by public you really mean "little Englanders"


Easy tiger!

----------


## Niamh

> And I would like to state that, yes, I mean by Britain the British Isles, and I hope I am not offending any Irishmen. From now on please regard the "Britain" of the thread title as the British Isles, which were collectively Britain once anyway.


I being an Irish_woman_ would like to state that the term 'british isles' in reference to the south of ireland was politically debated and called polictically incorrect last year and was therefore abolished in the eyes of the Irish and European goverment. Therefore the inclusion of writers for the republic are no longer incuded in the british isle. Where, yes, many of our famous writers were born during british occupation, they are not nessesarilly included in a british grouping. W.B.Yeats did not win a noble prize for literature for britain but Ireland as a country in its own right. Even when we were occupied by britain _they_ didn't even call us british. We were always Irish.

*jesting*besides our writers would overseed britain anyday! :Tongue: 

(sorry everyone...but you all know what i'm like when it comes to Ireland. I get a bit defensive!)

----------


## Brendan Madley

Yes, I agree Niamh and do not mean to cause dismay, but for the purposes of this forum, as grotesque as it may seem Irish literature to be put up against the literature of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, please consider British literature as England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (not trying to create controversy and hatred)

Also, Pensive, when I said that the notion that America had not been around long enough to write literature matching Britain's, I was saying it in general and not neccessarily to you so sorry for that.

And finally, in general and to add to what I was saying before, people like Dickens, Doyle, Archer, Austen, Trollope, Hardy, Woolf, the War Poets, Byron, Tolkien etc. that have been around since the birth of America ARE ACTUALLY, in the general mind of the world and critics, considered BETTER than what America has produced. We could sit here for years and argue about the opinions of the millions of people who have read books from that time, but in general the only effective way to determine it is to see what the world's mind thinks in general and you could say to me, how do I know? I answer you with the fact that English speaking countries and countries in the world that are affiliated with the English speaking world, look back to the source (England, UK, British Isles, whatever) and they see that that literature is the epitome of what is considered a classic in the English-SPEAKING world; they do not look at the latest Clive Cussler and count that among the greatest ever, with no offence intended to Mr. Cussler. I grant you, books like Moby-Dick, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and the works of James are very good, but when you consider over time and even since 1776 the output of literature from the British Isles and America, the British is seen by the world to be greater in terms of literature, more consistent and more written works. America isn't bad, but they can't stand up to Britain in that regard. Go to a film forum and debate that and you will come out in America's favour (though perhaps not for the most consistent) but literature is Britain's domain and what I have said about people like Shakespeare and now for British authors since 1776 when America began it's output; the authors cannot simply be matched, I'm sorry, for that is the world's general opinion and I don't mean to sound mean to America for saying so; as consolation I admit they whip Britain in films.

And in general I don't think me be the starter of this post doesn't give me the right to defend my own opinion. Thank you for reading this mammoth post.

P.S. A reason why they see Britain as being better, the general people of the world, is that English is England and they discover people like Shakespeare, Dickens etc. and then read Amercian literature. English-speaking literature is seen as being better British than American in part because people see that Britain is the home of the language. This doesn't mean, however, they are in any way bias when they mainly think Britain's is better.

----------


## Niamh

Well if you look about the rest of this forum you will discover that irish literature is generally discussed as just that, Irish literature. You cannot demand everyone to think the way you do on this matter and it is the fact that you are demanding that everyone should that i find offensive. The fact that you have called it the worlds opinion is rediculous. you will find that in this forum everyone is from a different part of the world and probably not all of the will agree with you. It is therefore wrong to say that your opinion is the 'worlds' opinion. And i think that some people will find offense to that. I think you will also find that Irish literature has more of a unique feel to the writing than that of britain and what today is seen as the british isles.(as previously stated in last post)

I think this thread has lost it. What started off as a discussion has become an argument.

----------


## McGrain

> I being an Irish_woman_W.B.Yeats did not win a noble prize for literature for britain but Ireland as a country in its own right. Even when we were occupied by britain _they_ didn't even call us british. We were always Irish.)


True as can be. Please correct me if i'm wrong, but when we say British Isles, isn't Ireland included? I mean, UK, Britain, i know Ireland is not included when we use these terms, but British Isles is different?

----------


## Pensive

> And finally, in general and to add to what I was saying before, people like Dickens, Doyle, Archer, Austen, Trollope, Hardy, Woolf, the War Poets, Byron, Tolkien etc. that have been around since the birth of America ARE ACTUALLY, in the general mind of the world and critics, considered BETTER than what America has produced. We could sit here for years and argue about the opinions of the millions of people who have read books from that time, but in general the only effective way to determine it is to see what the world's mind thinks in general and you could say to me, how do I know? I answer you with the fact that English speaking countries and countries in the world that are affiliated with the English speaking world, look back to the source (England, UK, British Isles, whatever) and they see that that literature is the epitome of what is considered a classic in the English-SPEAKING world; they do not look at the latest Clive Cussler and count that among the greatest ever, with no offence intended to Mr. Cussler. I grant you, books like Moby-Dick, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and the works of James are very good, but when you consider over time and even since 1776 the output of literature from the British Isles and America, the British is seen by the world to be greater in terms of literature, more consistent and more written works. America isn't bad, but they can't stand up to Britain in that regard. Go to a film forum and debate that and you will come out in America's favour (though perhaps not for the most consistent) but literature is Britain's domain and what I have said about people like Shakespeare and now for British authors since 1776 when America began it's output; the authors cannot simply be matched, I'm sorry, for that is the world's general opinion and I don't mean to sound mean to America for saying so; as consolation I admit they whip Britain in films.


You don't necessarily have to go by the judgement of *critics*. I am also a critic at the moment, but you don't have to agree with me if you don't want to. Only those are not critics who have their _critisism published in a magazine_. In fact, you will find people on roads - many of them anonymous - giving their opinions about books. Will you agree with all of them?Even if American Literature has been critisized more than British Literature (which I doubt) by most people in this world, this is not enough to change my opinion about it. Because, I believe every individual has her/his own opinion. That's another thing some people choose to go by what oh-so-famous-personalies' opinions were about the matter. 

If you really want to prove that British Literature is *far above American* than why not provide a valid point than that? Why not state the reasons to why you think writers like Steinbeck don't hold as good of a position as Hardy? Why not list the problems you see with American Literature which are not in British Literature? After all, you have been the one making this statement that British Literature is far ahead of American Literature.  :Smile:

----------


## Niamh

> True as can be. Please correct me if i'm wrong, but when we say British Isles, isn't Ireland included? I mean, UK, Britain, i know Ireland is not included when we use these terms, but British Isles is different?


It was but isnt anymore. It is mainly because we are not british and havent been a part of the british empire in a long time that the term was ceased by the European government.

You might as well be classing the writers from any country that was once a part of Russia(ussr) as Russian. I'm sure our friends from Poland, Latvia, Estonia etc would agree that countries that are nolonger part of an empire would prefer not to be continually associated with their former oppressor politcally and literarily.




> If you really want to prove that British Literature is *far above American* than why not provide a valid point than that? Why not state the reasons to why you think writers like Steinbeck don't hold as good of a position as Hardy? Why not list the problems you see with American Literature which are not in British Literature? After all, you have been the one making this statement that British Literature is far ahead of American Literature.


I agree with pensive. Dont make statements if you cant back them up properly.

----------


## McGrain

> It was but isnt anymore. It is mainly because we are not british and havent been a part of the british empire in a long time that the term was ceased by the European government.
> 
> You might as well be classing the writers from any country that was once a part of Russia(ussr) as Russian. I'm sure our friends from Poland, Latvia, Estonia etc would agree that countries that are nolonger part of an empire would prefer not to be continually associated with their former oppressor politcally and literarily.


OK, cool, thanks for putting me straight.

----------


## Niamh

> OK, cool, thanks for putting me straight.


Ok! just thought i'd make it aware. I mean you get my point right?

----------


## Brendan Madley

Ok then, I counter AND have actually given some reasons which I CAN back up, contary to many of your beliefs. And since I have given some reasons, albiet shallow but sufficent to met what was being discussed at the time, why don't you counter and tell me why America is so much better? In addition, namewise America cannot compare. Shakespeare (need I say more - the man is the greatest writer in the English language without a doubt), Dickens, Austen, Chaucher, Doyle, Hardy, Trollope, Eliot. Their names alone speak for themselves; their reputation preceeds them and exceeds any that can be given to an American author. Why would they have these reputations? Because their works are taken by critics (and I mean proper critics who publish in a magazine and newspaper and are qualified through some university degree to write about them - not you and me) and the general public as being masterpieces of prose and mind. No American author, though I admit there are some good ones, can demand such a reputation in the world and perhaps even America. Why? Because their works do not compare. And to those who say this discussion has become an argument; it hasn't really, merely a discussion where several people with different opinions are voicing their cases through long blogs. So tell me how America's author's reputations compare; a good sign of quality, I'll have you know.




> I agree with pensive. Dont make statements if you cant back them up properly.


At the time which I wrote my mammoth blog, people hadn't come back and poked holes all throughout it and hadn't had a time to respond, due to it being night here and all while it's day over there. Please refer to people's actual reply before making comment; I think you'll find I can go quite far in backing up my statements.

----------


## starbuck

Another reason is because American literature is still realitively new and the british have been writing since the dawn of time. It seems to me that Brit lit has more flavors to choose from than American. With American novels (esp. classic) it is either all about society/reality or sex. British you can get romances, political commentary that is noteworthy throughout British history, and not so much harsh violence like American novels (with a few exceptions). :Smile:  




> P.S. A reason why they see Britain as being better, the general people of the world, is that English is England and they discover people like Shakespeare, Dickens etc. and then read Amercian literature. English-speaking literature is seen as being better British than American in part because people see that Britain is the home of the language. This doesn't mean, however, they are in any way bias when they mainly think Britain's is better.

----------


## Pensive

> Ok then, I counter AND have actually given some reasons which I CAN back up, contary to many of your beliefs. And since I have given some reasons, albiet shallow but sufficent to met what was being discussed at the time, why don't you counter and tell me why America is so much better?


I did not say *America* is *so much* better, neither did I say *American Literature* is much better than British one. Instead the point I am trying to make is that both are being read in this world widely, and it can not be judged which one over-powers other. 




> In addition, namewise America cannot compare. Shakespeare (need I say more - the man is the greatest writer in the English language without a doubt), Dickens, Austen, Chaucher, Doyle, Hardy, Trollope, Eliot. Their names alone speak for themselves; their reputation preceeds them and exceeds any that can be given to an American author. Why would they have these reputations? Because their works are taken by critics (*and I mean proper critics who publish in a magazine and newspaper and are qualified through some university degree to write about them - not you and me*)


If you think so, then your opinion doesn't count.  :Smile:  




> and the general public as being masterpieces of prose and mind. No American author, though I admit there are some good ones, can demand such a reputation in the world and perhaps even America. Why? Because their works do not compare. And to those who say this discussion has become an argument; it hasn't really, merely a discussion where several people with different opinions are voicing their cases through long blogs. So tell me how America's author's reputations compare; a good sign of quality, I'll have you know.


And my point is that America has authors whose (of course I am talking about those I have read), works do matter and even are better than some of the British authors you have mentioned over here. My reasons for that are:

**Steinbeck's* narrative was wonderful. Overpowers Hardy, in my opinion.
*None of the short story writer has produced stories such as that of *Edgar Allan Poe.* There has never been a poem like "Annabel Lee" and "The Raven".
**Ray Bradbury* has been a great novelist. Hasn't he been? And please, read any of his work before answering. 
*I read *Call of Cthullu* by *Lovecraft* and it was just amazing. 
**Stephen King's* works are popularly read and admired by people. I too liked the two books which I read written by this writer.

After reading this author, if you still think that *British Literature* is much better than *American*, then there is nothing I can really do, except to think everyone has his own taste in the matter of books.

----------


## McGrain

> Ok! just thought i'd make it aware. I mean you get my point right?


Of course i get your point. It does no harm at all to set people straight about your own country. Nothing - nothing - is more irratating to me than people calling Britain "England". It's as if Scotland (and Wales and N Ireland) don't exsist to some of these people!

----------


## Logos

> Ok! just thought i'd make it aware. I mean you get my point right?





> It does no harm at all to set people straight about your own country. Nothing - nothing - is more irratating to me than people calling Britain "England". It's as if Scotland (and Wales and N Ireland) don't exsist to some of these people!


And I just have to add my .02 cents CDN... just as irritating to most *Canadians* that we get lumped in with/as 'Americans' from the United States, when we are from different county and the continent _North_ America  :Tongue:

----------


## McGrain

> And I just have to add my .02 cents CDN... just as irritating to most *Canadians* that we get lumped in with/as 'Americans' from the United States, when we are from the continent _North_ America


...must confess to having upset the occasional Canadian over just this. Not so much the geography, more the accent...apologies!

----------


## Brendan Madley

I have never disagreed with you in saying that people do have their own taste in literature, but was merely pointing out to you the fact that the reputations of the authors of British Literature cannot be surpassed or cannot be obtained lightly. I have never hated American Literature and in regard to your comment that my opinion cannot count, I was not voicing an opinion but pointing out to you the reputation of British authors over American authors, so your comment has no relevance. We must agree to disagree I'm afraid, but with the literature I have read, there is no one else like Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen, Chaucher, Trollope, Eliot, Tolkien, Lewis, Rowling, Acher, Doyle, Kipling, Woolf, Golding, Hardy etc and certaintly nobody who can surpass them from America or the world. But I have never tried to make people believe British Literature was better, merely presented my own side of the case and let them make up their own mind.

----------


## Pensive

> I have never disagreed with you in saying that people do have their own taste in literature, but was merely pointing out to you the fact that the reputations of the authors of British Literature cannot be surpassed or cannot be obtained lightly. I have never hated American Literature and in regard to your comment that my opinion cannot count, I was not voicing an opinion but pointing out to you the reputation of British authors over American authors, so your comment has no relevance.



You said that the opinion of people like me and you doesn't count, what else could I interpret from such a comment other than that you were trying to say your opinion did not count? 

If you are so sure about the reputation of British and American writers, then why did you start this thread? I thought you started it so we could voice our own opinions.

----------


## Adudaewen

I have to say that I have read a lot of American Literature as well as a lot of British Literature, and I really prefer British Literature. Mostly from an historical perspective, British Literature is goes back so much farther (obviously because America is practically a baby in comparison). I love history, and learning of a time which is totally alien to me. Books such as the writings of Jane Austen, Shakespear, Bram Stoker, Geoffrey Chaucer, etc. paint a portrait of times I wish I could have experienced myself. American Literature has some wonderful authors that I simply adore like Mark Twain, Jack London, Lousia May Allcott, and so many others. In all however, I have to still lean towards the eloquence and poetry of British writing. There is something very stark and choppy about how American authors write. They use words to simply make a snapshot, whereas British authors on a whole seem to use words as brush strokes in a painting. I hope that makes sense, I can't really explain it any better than that.

----------


## Brendan Madley

> You said that the opinion of people like me and you doesn't count, what else could I interpret from such a comment other than that you were trying to say your opinion did not count? 
> 
> If you are so sure about the reputation of British and American writers, then why did you start this thread? I thought you started it so we could voice our own opinions.


I only said this in regard to us talking about their international reputations. Obviously it is impractical to form an opinion after reading all British and American Literature, and to that end I stated that in this case we must regard an established critic's view; I am of the opinion that they are better qualified than us having university degrees etc. in critical Literature; this is why I say our opinion cannot count in that regard. I apologise if you took any offence at it.

I started this thread so we could all voice our opinions, note all. While it say I am convinced of the superiority of British Literature, does that make me unable to voice my views and state my case? No, I certaintly wouldn't think so.

In addition, as I said before, it is impractical to read all the Literature of both countries, hence we must rely on established critics and author's universal reputation to make up for this and give us a universal view of their greatness, not an individual's. America has not had a Shakespeare, Dickens, Chaucher, Austen, Bronte Sisters etc. They are singular entities of literature genius and as somebody said before, take America's 12 best works and match them against Shakespeare's, they wouldn't compare; I feel this is a very strong sign that America's literature might cannot stand alone against Shakespeare. He is acknowledged as the greatest in the English-language. Reputation wise, America simply cannot compare against such British geniuses. People such as Twain, Melville and James do not command such universal popularity or acclaim; their reputations do not hold up against the likes of Dickens, Shakespeare. We may have our individual likings, but universally, and please agree with me here, reputation and established critism are brilliant judges of global acclaim.

----------


## Brendan Madley

I agree with Adudaewen; to me American Literature is choppily written while British Literature is smooth and calculating, working towards an end while, as he brilliantly put it, brushing strokes, not merely using just words to escribe what is happening at that very moment. I know, my opinion, but mine nonetheless.

----------


## Pensive

> I only said this in regard to us talking about their international reputations. Obviously it is impractical to form an opinion after reading all British and American Literature, and to that end I stated that in this case we must regard an established critic's view; I am of the opinion that they are better qualified than us having university degrees etc. in critical Literature; this is why I say our opinion *cannot count in that regard.* I apologise if you took any offence at it.


First of all, I don't think that _an established critic_ would have read all American and British works too.  :Smile:  

Secondly, I think our opinion matters as much as a critic's opinion, especially in this forum. Anyone who has got weight in his points - his opinion should matter. No wonder how many university degress he has or he has not. 




> I started this thread so we could all voice our opinions, note all. While it say I am convinced of the superiority of British Literature, does that make me unable to voice my views and state my case? No, I certaintly wouldn't think so.


But your statement above is merely suggesting something else as it stresses on this thing that our opinion doesn't count in front of *established critics*. 




> In addition, as I said before, it is impractical to read all the Literature of both countries, hence we must rely on established critics and author's universal reputation to make up for this and give us a universal view of their greatness, not an individual's.


Yes, yes. You have mentioned all this before. And I tell you: you can't really form a universal exact answer to this question of yours. People haven't read every American and British work, so it would be better if you ask for an individual opinion - that's what I think we come on this forum for.  :Smile:  




> America has not had a Shakespeare, Dickens, Chaucher, Austen, Bronte Sisters etc. They are singular entities of literature genius and as somebody said before, take America's 12 best works and match them against Shakespeare's, they wouldn't compare; I feel this is a very strong sign that America's literature might cannot stand alone against Shakespeare. He is acknowledged as the greatest in the English-language. Reputation wise, America simply cannot compare against such British geniuses. People such as Twain, Melville and James do not command such universal popularity or acclaim; their reputations do not hold up against the likes of Dickens, Shakespeare.


They do stand up against Shakespeare. And they can compare him. Who really cares abour reputation? If that is so - then Harry Potter is the best book ever. Isn't it very popular? Perhaps, the most popular series now a days. Though I am addicted to this book myself, but I would prefer _East of Eden_ over it. Why? Because it is great writing, and no one can deny it. 




> We may have our individual likings, but universally, and please agree with me here, reputation and established critism are brilliant judges of global acclaim.


Established criticism does work sometimes, but not always. Universal popularity matters, but something popular amongst "critics" or other people is not necessarily the best. For instance: look at the practice of violence against women. Most of the countries in this world are poor, and especially in poor countries, this thing is common. It used to be extremely popular a few decades back, but you would get a hard kick from a feminist by saying this thing in front of a feminist that women are just for household world or a man's pleasure, and you deserve that kick if you say so. No matter how popular what you say is.  :Tongue: 

I am sorry for being a bit off-topic, but couldn't help it.




> I agree with Adudaewen; to me American Literature is choppily written while British Literature is smooth and calculating, working towards an end while, as he brilliantly put it, brushing strokes, not merely using just words to escribe what is happening at that very moment. I know, my opinion, but mine nonetheless.


You can always put it in the other way:

American Literature is not boring, unlike some of the writers of British Literature you have put in the post above this one. American Literature is precise unlike British Literature where long sentences are used to describe a small thing: wastage of words if you ask me. And here I especially mean Shakespeare.

American Literature is written more in a free style. American Literature (at least the books I have read) are more secular than the British ones. Of course, here I am talking about the books which I have read.

----------


## Brendan Madley

In reply, firstly when I speak of critics there, I mean them judging individual works, so hence wouldn't have to have read all literature. With them, it is there critisism that adds up, not what merely one critic thinks of a nation's literature. Secondly, I believe a critic is relevant as they have gone through university etc. learning and getting degrees in constructive critisism. You are right to think on this it is our own opinion, but I am trying to paint a picture in your mind of British Literature's reputation, in which critics come into play. Thirdly, I agree that it is sort of impossible to gauge which one is better, but only to a degree; what I am trying to show you is that Britain's reptation is far greater than America's and I think this can be gauged through people like Shakespeare and Dickens having such a name for themselves and such great reputations; they would only have got these through brilliance of work. In addition, Shakespeare is the best selling author of all time, over 2 billion copies. Second is Agatha Christie, 2 billion, British. Third is Dannielle Steel, 550 million, American. This gauges popularity, as you say in regard to Harry Potter not neccessarily the best judge of brilliance, but a judge nonetheless of an audience they can accumulate. Although Dickens isn't there, none of his novels have ever gone out of prit, something few authors can claim.
Fourthly, it is suicidal to try to compare people like Twain and Steinbeck to Shakespeare. He is the giant, the man, hailed by many as the GREATEST writer in the ENGLISH-SPEAKING WORLD and quite possibly the WORLD. Others like Dickens; their reputation too is quite untouchable. You may say it is impractical to try and get a measure of which country has better literature; it is true to a degree in the sense that both have produced so much literature, but I do feel strongly that no matter what, in answering this question a nation's reputation comes into play as a practical means of solving it. People like Steinbeck and Twain and Melville, great as they may be, simply cannot compare name-wise and in popularity. Of course our individual preferences may have it differently, but reputation wise, it is ridiculous to try and fell Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen etc. Finally, I have had the problem of all too often reading boring American Literature; opinions, I know, but my 2 cents on the mini-topic.

----------


## Pensive

> In reply, firstly when I speak of critics there, I mean them judging individual works, so hence wouldn't have to have read all literature. With them, it is there critisism that adds up, not what merely one critic thinks of a nation's literature. Secondly, I believe a critic is relevant as they have gone through university etc. learning and getting degrees in constructive critisism. You are right to think on this it is our own opinion, but I am trying to paint a picture in your mind of British Literature's reputation, in which critics come into play. Thirdly, I agree that it is sort of impossible to gauge which one is better, but only to a degree; what I am trying to show you is that Britain's reptation is far greater than America's and I think this can be gauged through people like Shakespeare and Dickens having such a name for themselves and such great reputations; they would only have got these through brilliance of work. In addition, Shakespeare is the best selling author of all time, over 2 billion copies. Second is Agatha Christie, 2 billion, British. Third is Dannielle Steel, 550 million, American. This gauges popularity, as you say in regard to Harry Potter not neccessarily the best judge of brilliance, but a judge nonetheless of an audience they can accumulate. Although Dickens isn't there, none of his novels have ever gone out of prit, something few authors can claim.
> Fourthly, it is suicidal to try to compare people like Twain and Steinbeck to Shakespeare. He is the giant, the man, hailed by many as the GREATEST writer in the ENGLISH-SPEAKING WORLD and quite possibly the WORLD. Others like Dickens; their reputation too is quite untouchable. You may say it is impractical to try and get a measure of which country has better literature; it is true to a degree in the sense that both have produced so much literature, but I do feel strongly that no matter what, in answering this question a nation's reputation comes into play as a practical means of solving it. People like Steinbeck and Twain and Melville, great as they may be, simply cannot compare name-wise and in popularity. Of course our individual preferences may have it differently, but reputation wise, it is ridiculous to try and fell Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen etc. Finally, I have had the problem of all too often reading boring American Literature; opinions, I know, but my 2 cents on the mini-topic.


I agree Shakespeare is perhaps the most popular writer ever, but I stick to that belief of mine most popular is not necessarily the best. So, as you said before, we would have to agree with disagree over here.

----------


## Lioness_Heart

> I have to say that I have read a lot of American Literature as well as a lot of British Literature, and I really prefer British Literature. Mostly from an historical perspective, British Literature is goes back so much farther (obviously because America is practically a baby in comparison). I love history, and learning of a time which is totally alien to me. Books such as the writings of Jane Austen, Shakespear, Bram Stoker, Geoffrey Chaucer, etc. paint a portrait of times I wish I could have experienced myself. American Literature has some wonderful authors that I simply adore like Mark Twain, Jack London, Lousia May Allcott, and so many others. In all however, I have to still lean towards the eloquence and poetry of British writing. There is something very stark and choppy about how American authors write. They use words to simply make a snapshot, whereas British authors on a whole seem to use words as brush strokes in a painting. I hope that makes sense, I can't really explain it any better than that.


I agree with that. I love reading books by American and British authors, but in general I prefer British books. That could be because I am English, so the language and style of British writing is more familiar to me than that of American writing. Also, British writing seems more imminently 'real' somehow than American books do - it could be because I am able to identify more with the descriptions. Having said that, I love Steinbeck's writing. 

I think that it is difficult to compare the two, because people will always respond with their own bias. But both are good in similar and different ways.

Ooh, I've just had another thought, on the Shakespeare theme. He is one of my favourite writers ever. His manipulation of language allows great emotion to come across, which I think can sometimes be missing in American writing (not all, obviously). Even though there is this image of Britain being all formal and emotionally repressed, I think that British literature conveys great passion that can sometimes be lacking in American literature, which can sometimes seem quite sterile.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

But mostly it's just fun! (Especially hearing the American's explain why their VERY talented writers have contributed as much as Shakespeare, Rushdie, Chaucer, Joyce etc., etc.) I like what you have to say but maybe lighten up a wee bit?

Said by Mcgrain

We should compare the actual quality of the work, rather than who has had more influence. You can't compare Chaucer to, say, Twain, because Chaucer is much more influential, yes, but that was because he came six centuries before Twain. On actual quality Twain beats Chaucer. Shakespeare is quite unlike anything that exists in American literature (I must confess that we are shamefully low on tragedies), but his sonnets are not especially good; they have very lovely figurative language, but they are all about him afraid of losing his edge. As I haven't even heard of Rushdie, and have never read anything of Joyce's, I can't really comment on them. I do like the output of both countries, however.
I agree that people should lighten up a bit.

----------


## McGrain

> But mostly it's just fun! (Especially hearing the American's explain why their VERY talented writers have contributed as much as Shakespeare, Rushdie, Chaucer, Joyce etc., etc.) I like what you have to say but maybe lighten up a wee bit?
> 
> Said by Mcgrain
> 
> We should compare the actual quality of the work, rather than who has had more influence. You can't compare Chaucer to, say, Twain, because Chaucer is much more influential, yes, but that was because he came six centuries before Twain. On actual quality Twain beats Chaucer. Shakespeare is quite unlike anything that exists in American literature (I must confess that we are shamefully low on tragedies), but his sonnets are not especially good; they have very lovely figurative language, but they are all about him afraid of losing his edge. As I haven't even heard of Rushdie, and have never read anything of Joyce's, I can't really comment on them. I do like the output of both countries, however.
> I agree that people should lighten up a bit.


Hello. Rushdie is arguably (i want to say "probably" but am worried about the hammering I might get) Britain's most pre-eminant and talented author since...well, forever some people think. He won the Booker of Booker's for his novel "Midnight's Children", and courted real controversy with the Satanic Verses - i think (and straying, as i am, into the realm of politics, i welcome correction on both spelling and facts) the fatwah that was issued came from no less an authority than the Shah of Iran. He lives in New York now, and every novel he's ever written (excluding his rather clumsy debut "Grimus") has made the New York Times best seller. His real contribution has been to thrust Magic Realism from the rear to the fore, which probably makes him responsible for the re-ignition of the fantasy literature genre, but easily and readily crossed over into film and television - this is the sign of a really massive cultural impact by an author I feel. I love, and have re-read all of his novels - i'd especially point you towards "The Moor's Last Sigh" (actually as beautiful as it sounds) and "The Satanic Verses" (only novel i've read that made me laugh out loud for no other reason than the cleverness of it's language, only novel i've re-read straight away upon finishing), assuming you're interested - with the exception of Rage, his most recent but one, "Shalimar The Clown". This is an exceptional novel, infuriating and wonderful in equal measures. Hard to read for all the right reasons.

Got a bit carried away then.

Anyway, can't agree with you about Chaucer, there are many that rank him absolutely alongside Shakespeare, and one of my old lecturers had him as number one. But he wore sneakers with his suit.

I also don't agree with you about American literature lacking tragic greatness, i'd say Miller is only pegged by Shakespeare in that department (though i'm sure anyone with a knowledge of ancient Greek work would take my head of for that).

I also don't agree with you that Shakespeare's sonnets are anything less than perfect. In all poetry only Coleridge at his best, and Ovid at his mischevious worst ,get near him for me.

Hey Dante, i just had a peek at your public profile and see that you love Life Of Pi. If you like that novel take a look at Rushdie, Pi winks at the audience a bit more, but basically you can draw a straight line through from one to the other, i think you'll enjoy him. Maybe start with Shame.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

> I being an Irishwoman would like to state that the term 'british isles' in reference to the south of ireland was politically debated and called polictically incorrect last year and was therefore abolished in the eyes of the Irish and European goverment. Therefore the inclusion of writers for the republic are no longer incuded in the british isle. Where, yes, many of our famous writers were born during british occupation, they are not nessesarilly included in a british grouping. W.B.Yeats did not win a noble prize for literature for britain but Ireland as a country in its own right. Even when we were occupied by britain they didn't even call us british. We were always Irish.


Niamh (or anyone else with an opinion on this)--I understand your point completely, but was wondering if there is some sort of neutral term one might use to refer collectively to the literatures of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales etc.? I ask this because I'm going into university teaching and, while I would naturally refer to a course on Yeats as "Irish Literature," here in the states at least a survey that includes a mixture of Irish, English and so on is generally titled a course on "British Literature." If I were teaching a course on literatures from the seperate nations of Italy, France, and Spain, I would refer to it as a course on "Continental European Lit." I had thought perhaps "Literature of the British Isles" might serve a similar purpose for including Ireland, but it seems from your post that this might not be the right term. Is there some more appropriate term that won't get my Irish colleagues upset, or would it be best to just title such a course "Literature of Britain and Ireland"? Just Curious.  :Smile:

----------


## Niamh

> Niamh (or anyone else with an opinion on this)--I understand your point completely, but was wondering if there is some sort of neutral term one might use to refer collectively to the literatures of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales etc.? I ask this because I'm going into university teaching and, while I would naturally refer to a course on Yeats as "Irish Literature," here in the states at least a survey that includes a mixture of Irish, English and so on is generally titled a course on "British Literature." If I were teaching a course on literatures from the seperate nations of Italy, France, and Spain, I would refer to it as a course on "Continental European Lit." I had thought perhaps "Literature of the British Isles" might serve a similar purpose for including Ireland, but it seems from your post that this might not be the right term. Is there some more appropriate term that won't get my Irish colleagues upset, or would it be best to just title such a course "Literature of Britain and Ireland"? Just Curious.


Well I'd probably go with literature of britain and Ireland. But technically both should go under the heading of European Literature as we are both European countries and Ireland more so because we are more involved in the European Union and also share the same currency as the majority of Europe. I mean when people use the term American literature they generally mean the united states of America, and every state in America is included eventhough they are more or less like countries in there own way. To me Irish literature should not go under the term British literature etc because as the title suggests it is the Literature of the 'British' and the Irish are not British. It would be like calling a Canadian Writer American if you get me. :Smile: 

But yeah if you have a separate course for continental Europe I'd go with calling the course the literature of Britain and Ireland.

----------


## Naila

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.

----------


## stlukesguild

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_ :Wink: . 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.  :Smile: 

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.

----------


## aeroport

> On actual quality Twain beats Chaucer. 
> 
> Shakespeare is quite unlike anything that exists in American literature (I must confess that we are shamefully low on tragedies), but his sonnets are not especially good; they have very lovely figurative language, but they are all about him afraid of losing his edge.


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_...)

Obviously, this doesn't answer for the _Hamlet_s and _MacBeth_s, 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.

----------


## EAP

Pensive,

You are awesome.

----------


## papayahed

> Pensive,
> 
> You are awesome.


Agreed.

----------


## Brendan Madley

> Pensive,
> 
> You are awesome.


In regard to what??

----------


## flor

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.  :Blush:  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!  :Smile:

----------


## McGrain

> 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!


Or the Greeks. Start a new thread, Russians v Greeks, that one would have some legs, Mother have Mercy.

----------


## Adudaewen

> Also, British writing seems more imminently 'real' somehow than American books do - it could be because I am able to identify more with the descriptions. Having said that, I love Steinbeck's writing.


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.

----------


## McGrain

> 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!



Or, many would say, the Greeks. Why don't you start a new thread...Russians v Greeks :Wink:  . Bet that one would have some legs!

----------


## flor

> Or the Greeks. Start a new thread, Russians v Greeks, that one would have some legs, Mother have Mercy.


He he, now that could become a brawl!




> Just not quite my cup of tea.


....and hark, such blasphemy from Nebraska, the hallowed land of Willa Cather! I may faint! Are you not American?

----------


## stlukesguild

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.

----------


## Adudaewen

> ....and hark, such blasphemy from Nebraska, the hallowed land of Willa Cather! I may faint! Are you not American?


Shocking, I know. I am indeed American, thus the blasphemy is my badge of shame to carry.  :Wink:

----------


## Virgil

> I certainly agree that the Russians may be offer more than a formiddible competition to American writers... especially considering the 19th century.


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."

----------


## McGrain

> 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 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.

----------


## Virgil

> 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.


Fine. That is your opinion. This is my opinion. You don't have to accept it. What makes you such an expert?

----------


## McGrain

> Fine. That is your opinion. This is my opinion. You don't have to accept it. What makes you such an expert?


I'm not an expert on Faulkner. You certainly seem to be, which is why i asked you to clarify your very firm opinions about him. It's my opinion, as you so rightly point out, that Joyce could be regarded as the greatest novelist of that century, indeed, that Faulkner sprung from Joyce. I've breifly outlined why above.

I certainly didn't mean to upset you, and as it is your right to hold your opinion regarding Faulkner it is your right to ignore the questions i've asked you about that opinion.

----------


## shantifu

If I was asked this question two years ago I would have said British literature 'Hands down', howver, that was before my exposure to writers such as James, Poe, Dickenson, Millay, Hemmingway, Millay, Faulkner, Hughes, Emerson, Fuller and of Course...Whitman. Before them I thought the language of British novels and poems so much more superior to American Literature. After them, I find that American writers have a beauty all of their own. I have come to appreciate American litereature more. As to which is better I find it hard to say for sure, although I am 52% sure I still prefer British Literature.

If I was asked this question two years ago I would have said British literature 'Hands down', howver, that was before my exposure to writers such as James, Poe, Dickenson, Millay, Hemmingway, Millay, Faulkner, Hughes, Emerson, Fuller and of Course...Whitman. Before them I thought the language of British novels and poems so much more superior to American Literature. After them, I find that American writers have a beauty all of their own. I have come to appreciate American litereature more. As to which is better I find it hard to say for sure, although I am 52% sure I still prefer British Literature.

----------


## illuminatus

> Both countries have produced great literature. If you want to see which has prodduced more or better literature, then it is partly a mattter of taste, and literature has been produced in Britain for a longer time than the US has had writers.


Yep. Definitely depends on taste. If you kinda like "Ye Olde English" then Brit's for you, but for a more modern touch one should stick with an All-American approach. :Biggrin:

----------


## AChristieFan

I love both British & American Literature but I think I love British Literature better. I just like the way British authors write. :Smile:   :Smile:   :Smile:

----------


## Lioness_Heart

> Yep. Definitely depends on taste. If you kinda like "Ye Olde English" then Brit's for you, but for a more modern touch one should stick with an All-American approach.


I'm not sure that "Ye Olde English" is the right term to use here. British writing is not all formal and old-fashioned; although there are the great and famous writers like Austen and Shakespeare, modern writers deserve to be recognised too. There is some amazing modern British writing out there at the moment. The American style is different, but it would be unfair to class it as 'more modern'. British writing reflects Britain, which is different from America, but we're not completely out of touch over here! I don't think that either is better or worse: just different.

----------


## stlukesguild

Virgil;

I certainly can't dispute your thoughts upon 20th century American poetry. There are certain poets from other countries who are unquestionably giants... and some of whom I prefer over almost any American contemporary (Rilke and Montale for example) but as you suggest, in most cases its one or two central figures or top-tier poets. The Germans have Rilke, Paul Celan (OK... he wasn't German, but he wrote almost all that he is known for in German), and maybe Ingebourg Bachmann. The Italians have Eugenio Montale and perhaps Salvatore Quasimodo and Giuseppe Ungaretti. I might acknowledge 3 or four Russian giants: Anna Akhmontova, Marina Tsvetaeva, Osip Mandelshtam, and Boris Pasternak. The French...? Eluard? Valery? Apollonaire? Do any of these attain the first rank? And the Brits: Yeats, Hardy, D.H. Lawrence, Auden, Seamus Heaney, and Geoffrey Hill... and a great body of smaller (yet still wonderful) poets: Dylan Thomas, Walter de la Mare, Owen, Robert Graves, etc... perhaps the Spanish offer the best competition: Lorca, Antonio Machado, Vincente Aleixandre, Rafael Alberti, Miguel Hernandez, etc... But you are correct about the Americans: T.S Eliot, Ezra Pound, W.C. Williams, Wallace Stevens, Robert Frost, Hart Crane, e.e. cummings, Marianne Moore, Ammons, John Ashberry, Richard Wilbur, Mark Strand, Anthony Hecht, etc...

I'm not certain I'd give the award for greatest novelist to Faulkner... although I wouldn't find him to be a bad choice or one easy to dispute either. Joyce certainly can't be ignored, although for the single epic achievement I think I'd go with Proust. But then... what of Thomas Mann? Or Hardy? Woolf, or Lawrence? I'd also ask you about short stories... or rather about those writers who challenged the accepted forms of literature: Kafka first and foremost... was not the 20th century often referred to as "Kafkaesque"? And what of Beckett, Borges, and Calvino? While the 20th century may have been "The American Century", when it comes to literature it might have just as much been the century of multiculturalism. Several older European cultures produced literary figures of a greatly renewed vigor: Italy (Montale, Landolfi, Ungaretti, calvino, etc...), Greece (Cavafy, Kazantzakis), Portugal (Pessoa and Sarmago), and Spain. We also find the Latin American literature comes of age with Octavio Paz, J.L. Borges, Pablo Neruda, Alejo Carpentier, Julio Cortazar, Marquez, etc... and we start to discover major new writers in India, Africa, Asia, Australia, etc... perhaps one of the reasons I hate the this country vs that country competition when it comes to the arts is that such competitions often lead to the sort of chauvanism that ignores the very real contributions of other cultures.

----------


## Virgil

> perhaps one of the reasons I hate the this country vs that country competition when it comes to the arts is that such competitions often lead to the sort of chauvanism that ignores the very real contributions of other cultures.


I agree and I've said so in an earlier post in this thread.

----------


## Janine

> I agree and I've said so in an earlier post in this thread.


I agree. It seems unfair to me to compare the two countries literature this way.

----------


## Dante Wodehouse

> I agree. It seems unfair to me to compare the two countries literature this way.


What's unfair about it? We are just having some literary fun, comparing two seperate things in a never ending competition, as it will never be resolved.




> Or, many would say, the Greeks. Why don't you start a new thread...Russians v Greeks . Bet that one would have some legs!


Russia v. France, Dostoyevski on Dumas, Tolstoy against Hugo. This weekend at Madison Square Garden.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Someboyd may have pointed this out already, I would just like to put in that T.S. Eliot is way cooler than George Eliot. But then T.S. wrote his best stuff while living in London.

----------


## srpbritlit

I am a huge fan of British literature! Of course I love American literature, but I enjoy British literature so much, because I think modern and "classic" authors(Austen, Dickens, Bronte, and their contemporaries and earlier authors, i.e. Shakespeare, Caucer,etc.) from England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland(the UK) are definitely more culturally and mechanically aware of the usage of English language, as it was intended to originally be spoken("the King's English"). I believe many Americans (especially myself, judging by my terrible grammar and syntax) have butchered the English language, which obviously originated in England! Sorry to ramble and rant. Please reply.

----------


## NickAdams

America's greastest contenders were trained by the British, but I believe the pupils have succeeded their teachers.

----------


## Wintereis

> Ha, Ha. You're joking right. In the public consciousness and for very good reason, Poe, Steinbeck and Irving or any other American author DOES NOT compare to people like: Doyle, DICKENS, Eliot, Archer, Trollope, Hardy, Byron, etc. Please note that I have used British authors that have lived only since the independence of America; I have done so to prove that no American alive ever, which technically speaking is since 1776, can come close to that thank you, which quite throws your "The British Isles has been around longer" off completley now as America had no response to Victorian writers. They, as a select group of Britain's literature history, far surpass anything America had or has today. Thank you.


I know I'm commenting on an old post, but the above quote seems to be a bit ridiculous. 

How many people here have read "Moby-Dick". The forward of the first edition of the Novel I owned was written by one of the world's foremost literary critics. He called the book, "the best novel of the English Language", and I would have to agree. furthermore, it looks like no one is taking poetry into account here. American poets have been far more innovative and influential than British poets since Whitman and Dickinson. Indeed, an entire movement "The Revival Movement" in 1960's Britain was dedicated to trying to reinvigorate British poetry by looking across the Atlantic to the American Poets.

All this is not to say that American Literature is better than British or visa versa, but that we are missing large swaths of information that should be filled in before we make bold statements in either direction.

----------


## Vavasor

First it must be noted that the era that gave us Dracula, The Jungle Book, Treasure Island, Peter Pan, and Trilby in England is the era in America that gave us The Awakening, Pudd'nhead Wilson, Huck Finn, Mcteague, Maggie, and Sister Carrie. I bring up this era because I believe it was when the Americans were beginning to catch up with the British. I think the early works of Norris and Crane were trying to break out of the rut of innocence that American Literature was caught in, and their works lacked subtlety a little bit, but I'd like to think that if either had lived to be sixty (instead of 30 and 32) they would have been among the best authors in the world. Sherwood Anderson, our closest equivalent to a D.H. Lawrence I think did a few things better than Lawrence. His characters, as creations impress me a bit more than Lawrence's. I have a lot of admiration for Sinclair Lewis's novels, especially Elmer Gantry, but as far as I know we didn't have anyone in America doing that kind of work in the mind-nineteenth century when Thackeray was going strong in England.

----------


## kelby_lake

American Literature didn't really kick off until the latter part of the 19th century and there's a distinct lack of women involved. I'm afraid I have to give it to us Brits  :Smile:

----------


## Wintereis

> First it must be noted that the era that gave us Dracula, The Jungle Book, Treasure Island, Peter Pan, and Trilby in England is the era in America that gave us The Awakening, Pudd'nhead Wilson, Huck Finn, Mcteague, Maggie, and Sister Carrie. I bring up this era because I believe it was when the Americans were beginning to catch up with the British. I think the early works of Norris and Crane were trying to break out of the rut of innocence that American Literature was caught in, and their works lacked subtlety a little bit, but I'd like to think that if either had lived to be sixty (instead of 30 and 32) they would have been among the best authors in the world. Sherwood Anderson, our closest equivalent to a D.H. Lawrence I think did a few things better than Lawrence. His characters, as creations impress me a bit more than Lawrence's. I have a lot of admiration for Sinclair Lewis's novels, especially Elmer Gantry, but as far as I know we didn't have anyone in America doing that kind of work in the mind-nineteenth century when Thackeray was going strong in England.


I guess I wonder by your statements what you intention was in "innocence" and "catchup with the British"? These and your statement regarding "that kind of work" in regard to Thackery seem a bit vague to me. I wonder if you could clarify your point. At this moment I am a bit confounded, as these statements almost seem to reflect a more Eurocentic tone than one from an American literary perspective. Please do elucidate your comments for me.


To clarify my own point, if that helps, I was stating that British poetry stagnated in the 19th century, fixating on formal verse, and creating little innovation in the field for almost a century. You can see it easily when you compare the brief works of Hart Crane to W.H. Auden or W.B. Yeats, all contemporaries . . . though one's life was shatteringly short. Again, Auden was alive and still considered at his full height when both the New York School and the Beat poets were creating two very distinct voices in American poetry far from Auden's Christ Church . . . that's not even to mention Jazz forms developed in Harlem, which came about in his younger years. But, also, you can see it in the mid-nineteenth-century with comparisons between the Brownings or G.M. Hopkins and Whitman. The contrast in style, in form,, language, and philosophy is so very different and innovative.




> American Literature didn't really kick off until the latter part of the 19th century and there's a distinct lack of women involved. I'm afraid I have to give it to us Brits


Please, tell me what early and mid 19th century American Literature you have read?

----------


## tonywalt

Interesting.

----------


## mal4mac

> Someboyd may have pointed this out already, I would just like to put in that T.S. Eliot is way cooler than George Eliot. But then T.S. wrote his best stuff while living in London.


Chalk & Cheese. George was a first class novelist with no reputation for poetry, T.S. vice versa (if he *is* a first class poet:-) For myself, I much prefer George to T.S.




> Sherwood Anderson, our closest equivalent to a D.H. Lawrence I think did a few things better than Lawrence. His characters, as creations impress me a bit more than Lawrence's...


I just tried re-reading "the Rainbow" and had to give up, although I managed to get through "Sons and Lovers" (just). I think it's now generally accepted that Lawrence is nowhere near the class of Dickens, George Eliot, Austen... I agree with that estimation. All that mystico-sexuality gets very tedious... So doing better than Lawrwence isn't "all that". David Lodge, amongst several other modern Brits, does better than Lawrence IMHO...

----------


## kelby_lake

> Please, tell me what early and mid 19th century American Literature you have read?


It doesn't really interest me as a period so I've only read just over half of Moby Dick and a bit of The Scarlett Letter. Both of them are good works but they belong to the mid/second half of the 19th century (I think they're both circa 1850). I don't think I've read any early 19th century American literature-the only name I can think of is Poe.

When critics discuss American classics, they tend to mention works which are post mid-19th century. The earliest contender for Great American Novel would probably be Moby Dick.

----------


## Wintereis

> I just tried re-reading "the Rainbow" and had to give up, although I managed to get through "Sons and Lovers" (just). I think it's now generally accepted that Lawrence is nowhere near the class of Dickens, George Eliot, Austen... I agree with that estimation. All that mystico-sexuality gets very tedious... So doing better than Lawrwence isn't "all that". David Lodge, amongst several other modern Brits, does better than Lawrence IMHO...


Did you also find it a bit redundant, as if Lawrence were attempting to batter you over the head with the subject matter? That is how I found "Lady Chatterley's Lover"




> It doesn't really interest me as a period so I've only read just over half of Moby Dick and a bit of The Scarlett Letter. Both of them are good works but they belong to the mid/second half of the 19th century (I think they're both circa 1850). I don't think I've read any early 19th century American literature-the only name I can think of is Poe.
> 
> When critics discuss American classics, they tend to mention works which are post mid-19th century. The earliest contender for Great American Novel would probably be Moby Dick.


Yes, the white whale, that it is . . . or at least I cannot name an earlier contender. I can name some classic earlier works, however: The Leather Stocking Tales (e.g. "The Last of the Mohicans") by James Fenimore Cooper, Washington Irving's short stories and essays including "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" and "Rip Van Winkle". Also, Edgar Allen Poe, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thorough, and James Russell Lowell were published in the earlier part of the 1800's.

----------


## dfloyd

You don't read Chaucer and Shakespeare and not read Poe and Hawthrne. You don't read Melville and Twain and give up Dickens and Thackeray. You read the best of both nations, including the American Declaration of Idependence.

----------


## Wintereis

> You don't read Chaucer and Shakespeare and not read Poe and Hawthrne. You don't read Melville and Twain and give up Dickens and Thackeray. You read the best of both nations, including the American Declaration of Idependence.


I cannot disagree with that statement, but how often are different texts read outside their own cultures I wonder? I have read all the above at one point-- some assigned, some not. But I wonder to what extent certain writings in one culture are perceived as important in another. Not a question that is readily answerable, as it would differ between cultures. But interesting.

----------


## stlukesguild

The idea of such a comparison is absurd. The United States does not really begin to become a nation of any real cultural influence until the late 19th early 20th century. In spite of this, the US has certainly churned out more than a few literary artists of real merit: Whitman, Dickinson, Emerson, Hawthorne, Melville, Poe, Twain, T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Wallace Stevens, Hart Crane, W.C. Williams, e.e. cummings, Faulkner, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Elizabeth Bishop, Nathaniel West, Gore Vidal, Norman Mailer, Saul Bellow, Flannery O'Conner, John Barth, Philip Roth, Cormac McCarthy, etc... How would British literature just some 200 years after the Viking settlement... or even after the Norman Invasion have compared? The US is an incredibly young nation by European and Asian standards... and yet American culture has also produced the Hollywood film industry, Jazz, Rock-n-Roll, Bluegrass, and become a leading figure in literature, classical music, architecture, and the visual arts. It would seem that the notion of an American Renaissance or even an American Century is not empty hyperbole.

And I say this as one far more enamored of European culture and art.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Niamh (or anyone else with an opinion on this)--I understand your point completely, but was wondering if there is some sort of neutral term one might use to refer collectively to the literatures of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales etc.? I ask this because I'm going into university teaching and, while I would naturally refer to a course on Yeats as "Irish Literature," here in the states at least a survey that includes a mixture of Irish, English and so on is generally titled a course on "British Literature."




I guess you have to find out what the currently acceptable geographical term is for the little group of islands at the north-west corner of Europe, and use that.

----------


## Emil Miller

> First it must be noted that the era that gave us Dracula, The Jungle Book, Treasure Island, Peter Pan, and Trilby in England is the era in America that gave us The Awakening, Pudd'nhead Wilson, Huck Finn, Mcteague, Maggie, and Sister Carrie. I bring up this era because I believe it was when the Americans were beginning to catch up with the British. I think the early works of Norris and Crane were trying to break out of the rut of innocence that American Literature was caught in, and their works lacked subtlety a little bit, but I'd like to think that if either had lived to be sixty (instead of 30 and 32) they would have been among the best authors in the world. Sherwood Anderson, our closest equivalent to a D.H. Lawrence I think did a few things better than Lawrence. His characters, as creations impress me a bit more than Lawrence's. I have a lot of admiration for Sinclair Lewis's novels, especially Elmer Gantry, but as far as I know we didn't have anyone in America doing that kind of work in the mind-nineteenth century when Thackeray was going strong in England.


I haven't read Crane but I agree with your estimation of Norris as a potential American literary giant comparable to the European naturalists of the period. His early death is one of US literature's greatest tragedies. Mcteague is wonderful writing and the first two books of his unfinished trilogy The Octopus and The Pit are brilliant descriptions of one facet of US capitalism; it is a personal regret that I'm unable to read the last of them. I would certainly rate him as important as Sinclair Lewis. The real tragedy of Frank Norris is that, judging by how infrequently he is mentioned on this forum, he seems to have been neglected by readers supposedly interested in literary merit.

----------


## TheChilly

American Literature is more diverse. 

British Literature is more dense, complex, and poetic (i.e. Vanity Fair).

----------


## Wintereis

> American Literature is more diverse. 
> 
> British Literature is more dense, complex, and poetic (i.e. Vanity Fair).


You'll have to pardon me, but I am going to have to disagree with that statement. It is far too general to accurately fit the literary forms of either nation.




> I haven't read Crane but I agree with your estimation of Norris as a potential American literary giant comparable to the European naturalists of the period. His early death is one of US literature's greatest tragedies. Mcteague is wonderful writing and the first two books of his unfinished trilogy The Octopus and The Pit are brilliant descriptions of one facet of US capitalism; it is a personal regret that I'm unable to read the last of them. I would certainly rate him as important as Sinclair Lewis. The real tragedy of Frank Norris is that, judging by how infrequently he is mentioned on this forum, he seems to have been neglected by readers supposedly interested in literary merit.



You talk about Norris, but poor Edith Wharton is never mentioned at all despite her great literary prowess. "The Age of Innocence", "Ethan Frome", "Summer", "The House of Mirth". She was definitely an expert on the gilded age, an adept navigator of the moral shoals which bridged the way between Victorian and Modern society, and a writer as vivid in her depictions on the Astor 400 as the everyday New England villager.

----------


## Silas Thorne

Agree with dfloyd, this is a very silly topic. I think American and British literature should each pick one champion and settle it with a decision based on zombie kumite.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Agree with dfloyd, this is a very silly topic. I think American and British literature should each pick one champion and settle it with a decision based on zombie kumite.



On the contrary, it's a very sensible and valid issue, and should be debated thoroughly. When we've finished here, I shall open a new thread of similar importance entitled _The White Cliffs of Dover vs The Appalachians_.

----------


## Arrowni

It's simply unfair to compare, but if we were to keep this arguments random and superficial you can say the UK wins. Its an empty statement for a number of reasons, specially considering that you will be stacking several british identities over a number of centuries and stacking them as if they were the same thing, as if you could pull some literary level from the particular geography in which they were created.

A follow-up question, in the spirit of making a broader subject: 20th century non-british (including Canada, Australia etc.) texts against 20th century british texts, which one is "better"?

----------


## tonywalt

As Cayman has an equal amount of British and North Americans. I hear similiar arguments every day over Football (soccer) vs. American football. And Crisps versus Chips. And Door swing out vs. doors swing in. This curry versus that curry.......on and on.

I have learned one thing, it's a tribal world and most (not all) people stick to their own tribe, in the end.

----------


## Wintereis

> On the contrary, it's a very sensible and valid issue, and should be debated thoroughly. When we've finished here, I shall open a new thread of similar importance entitled _The White Cliffs of Dover vs The Appalachians_.


The Appalachians? Man! That's not right. You take Britain's most famous geographical feature and stick us with withering mountains.  :Incazzato:  Lets do The White Cliffs of Dover and the Scottish Highlands (tag teams are more fun) vs. The Grand Canyon and Yellowstone.




> As Cayman has an equal amount of British and North Americans. I hear similiar arguments every day over Football (soccer) vs. American football. And Crisps versus Chips. And Door swing out vs. doors swing in. This curry versus that curry.......on and on.
> 
> I have learned one thing, it's a tribal world and most (not all) people stick to their own tribe, in the end.


I don't think it is intended to be all that serious of a conversation. It is like two competitive friends razzing each other.

----------


## stlukesguild

The Appalachians? Man! That's not right. You take Britain's most famous geographical feature and stick us with withering mountains. Lets do The White Cliffs of Dover and the Scottish Highlands (tag teams are more fun) vs. The Grand Canyon and Yellowstone.

You are forgetting the Rocky Mountains... or even just the Grand Tetons. And then you have the Valley of Monuments in Utah, Yosemite, Kilauea in Hawaii, Alaska, the Everglades, etc...

----------


## AjaxAscendant

> It's simply unfair to compare, but if we were to keep this arguments random and superficial you can say the UK wins. Its an empty statement for a number of reasons, specially considering that you will be stacking several british identities over a number of centuries and stacking them as if they were the same thing, as if you could pull some literary level from the particular geography in which they were created.


When a guy's right, he's right. It's downright stupid to compare these two Anglic giants with each other, as if their literature were Great Walls of antithetical manifestos.

----------


## mal4mac

> Did you also find it a bit redundant, as if Lawrence were attempting to batter you over the head with the subject matter? That is how I found "Lady Chatterley's Lover"


Yes I did. I read Chatterley a few decades ago and don't intend to repeat the experience... not because it was at all shocking, just because it was tedious. I have a copy of Women in Love which I might attempt again - I remember it as less tedious than 'the Rainbow'... Sons & Lovers might be his best novel... but that only brings him up to middling Hardy...

I'm reading Kipling's penguin "Man Who would be King" collection at the moment. *So* much a better reading experience than Lawrence ... OK he has imperialist tendencies, but he doesn't batter you over the head with them. (Lawrence was also a bit of a fascist...) Kipling is a great story teller and he *really* moves the story along quickly - such a wonderful contrast to Lawrence. His tales are also pretty amazing - one story is an account of how an Indo-European gets hooked on opium, it's better than anything by Burroughs! Another is how an Imperialist officer falls into a pit of 'good as dead hindus' and lives off eating crows while a mysterious rifleman takes pot shots at him - reads like Kafka at his best! Another..., but heck, enough... buy it and read it... I never imagined that Kipling could write such stories... ignore his bad press...

----------


## Mr.lucifer

Here's a proposal, give all writers a gun, blindfold them, and let it all play out naturally. The side with the most survivors win.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

If we really want to compare an important issue between America and the UK, let's compare cuisine.

----------


## MarkBastable

> If we really want to compare an important issue between America and the UK, let's compare cuisine.


We will when you get some.

----------


## Alexander III

> We will when you get some.


The irony of an englishman belittling the cuisine of another nation....We might as well have Russians complaining that Greece is too cold.

----------


## MarkBastable

> The irony of an englishman belittling the cuisine of another nation....We might as well have Russians complaining that Greece is too cold.



Very few people who knock English food have ever had any in England. If you have, then we can talk about it. I have lived in the US for extended periods, and have eaten in countless restaurants there, and I'm happy to trade experiences.

----------


## Alexander III

> Very few people who knock English food have ever had any in England. If you have, then we can talk about it. I have lived in the US for extended periods, and have eaten in countless restaurants there, and I'm happy to trade experiences.


I have only been the the U.S when I was young and do not quite remember, But I am at university in england so yes I have been eating english food. Many english people take pride in their food and that is fine - so long as you don't expect the rest of the world to admire it as well. The food is good, but nothing more. In places such as Spain, Italy and France, food is understood as more than food - in england this zeitgeist doesn't exist. 

That is why "english cuisine" is a funny joke on the continent, no Italian, frenchman, Spaniard ect would ever think the words "english cuisine" let alone say them in a serious manner.

Of course America is the equivalent of England when it comes to food - but an Englishman belittling American food seems to be the pot calling the kettle black.

A simple way of seeing if a country has good food, is going to different countries and seeing if their metropolises have restaurants specialized with that nations cuisine.

Italian, French, Chinese, Indian, ect. Restaurants exist all over the world. English and American Restaurants don't.

----------


## Emil Miller

Any moment now I expect Stlukes to come in with Cajun cooking but, think McDonalds: or is that the unthinkable?

----------


## stlukesguild

Any moment now I expect Stlukes to come in with Cajun cooking but, think McDonalds: or is that the unthinkable?

Certainly the US has any number of native ethnic cuisines: Cajun, Southwestern and Tex/Mex, African-American, Southern, New-England, New York, etc... as well as the wealth of foreign cuisines as the result of immigration: Italian, German, Russian Japanese, Thai, Indian, Mexican, Chinese, Vietnamese, Spanish, Jewish, Polish, Irish, etc... I can find restaurants specializing in any of these cuisines in most American cities. But then we have our questionable native inventions... especially fast food. Personally, I think Jewish cuisine has both the British and Americans beat by a long-shot: Gefilte fish, Lox, quenelles, pickled herring, borscht, pickled eggs, chicken liver...  :Skep: 

I remember reading an article years ago that theorized that Britain and America didn't develop any real cuisine of note as a result of their wealth in natural resources. Having access to so much beef, lamb, chicken, etc... far beyond other countries they didn't need to develop means of making what were often scraps... poor cuts of meat taste good through the use of various herbs, seasonings, etc... The article went on to point out how something like chili was developed on the cattle-runs in the old American South-West. A cow was slaughtered... but it would take more than a few days for a group of a dozen of so cattlemen to finish the beast. In the intense South-Western heat the meat would rapidly turn nasty. The cooks employed various local and Mexican seasonings, hot chiles, etc... to cover up the taste. 

Personally, I don't think a majority of Americans... and it may be the same with the Brits... take meals as seriously as other cultures. I had a Puerto-Rican friend in New York who insisted on serving you home-made Spanish coffee or hot chocolate (made from real chocolate and cream!) any time you visited. He declared that in Puerto-Rico this was a tradition. Even if you were coming to talk business... or kill the other guy... you would first have some real coffee or hot chocolate. My Chinese friend is the same. Anytime he wishes to thank someone for something he offers to cook them dinner. As he worked for years as a chef in a Chinese restaurant we have never refused.

----------


## G L Wilson

The British could write well if they nuked Oxford and Cambridge.

----------


## Alexander III

> The British could write well if they nuked Oxford and Cambridge.


Yea, sure killing the finest of an entire generation is alway the way to go when you want to improve your nation. Just ask the russians and their glorious USSR...


On a more comical note your comment reminded me of this funny video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg

----------


## Emil Miller

[QUOTE=stlukesguild;1065891 Personally, I don't think a majority of Americans... and it may be the same with the Brits... take meals as seriously as other cultures. [QUOTE]

I think you may have a point there but, in recent years, media pundits have cottoned on to the fact and, being the busy little iconoclasts that they are, have been flooding the UK media with an unending number of programmes and newspaper articles about food and cooking. Of course, the TV, radio and newspapers are only too pleased to cover this tedious subject matter because, as with so much else they engage in, it gives them a chance to justify their their existence. But, by any objective standard, chefs belong in the kitchen and should remain there.

----------


## Motherof8

I enjoy English literature better but maybe that's just me.

----------


## G L Wilson

At least the Americans have no sense of irony which helps.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Any moment now I expect Stlukes to come in with Cajun cooking but, think McDonalds: or is that the unthinkable?
> 
> Certainly the US has any number of native ethnic cuisines: Cajun, Southwestern and Tex/Mex, African-American, Southern, New-England, New York, etc... as well as the wealth of foreign cuisines as the result of immigration: Italian, German, Russian Japanese, Thai, Indian, Mexican, Chinese, Vietnamese, Spanish, Jewish, Polish, Irish, etc... I can find restaurants specializing in any of these cuisines in most American cities. But then we have our questionable native inventions... especially fast food. Personally, I think Jewish cuisine has both the British and Americans beat by a long-shot: Gefilte fish, Lox, quenelles, pickled herring, borscht, pickled eggs, chicken liver... 
> 
> I remember reading an article years ago that theorized that Britain and America didn't develop any real cuisine of note as a result of their wealth in natural resources. Having access to so much beef, lamb, chicken, etc... far beyond other countries they didn't need to develop means of making what were often scraps... poor cuts of meat taste good through the use of various herbs, seasonings, etc... The article went on to point out how something like chili was developed on the cattle-runs in the old American South-West. A cow was slaughtered... but it would take more than a few days for a group of a dozen of so cattlemen to finish the beast. In the intense South-Western heat the meat would rapidly turn nasty. The cooks employed various local and Mexican seasonings, hot chiles, etc... to cover up the taste. 
> 
> Personally, I don't think a majority of Americans... and it may be the same with the Brits... take meals as seriously as other cultures. I had a Puerto-Rican friend in New York who insisted on serving you home-made Spanish coffee or hot chocolate (made from real chocolate and cream!) any time you visited. He declared that in Puerto-Rico this was a tradition. Even if you were coming to talk business... or kill the other guy... you would first have some real coffee or hot chocolate. My Chinese friend is the same. Anytime he wishes to thank someone for something he offers to cook them dinner. As he worked for years as a chef in a Chinese restaurant we have never refused.


I guess too it depends on what MarkBastable is calling British food versus American. Are we comparing Figgy pudding to Chili? Blood sausage to Southern Fried Chicken? I know which ones I would want to eat in those comparisons. Or are we comparing ethnic foods that are imports or quasi-imports to the countries (as many are fusion/hybrids of a lot of food cultures)?

I would think the Brits have the advantage with Indian food, Middle Eastern food, Ethiopian, while America in general has superior Tex-Mex, Pizza, Barbecue, and Delis. But to imply that America has bad food and a lack of worthwhile culinary traditions is ridiculous. To be honest, I prefer Tex-Mex, Pizza, BBQ, and Deli food over Indian Food. 

The same applies to this same debate in literature, both are worthwhile traditions with plenty of works worthy of a reader's time, which goes for the literature of many other world cultures as well. This debate is silly because ultimately it is going to come down to personal preferences more than anything else.

----------


## Arrowni

> This debate is silly because ultimately it is going to come down to personal preferences more than anything else.


That's not the main reason for the debate being silly though.

----------


## TheFifthElement

> Are we comparing Figgy pudding to Chili? Blood sausage to Southern Fried Chicken? 
> .


Figgy pudding? Woah, just got a rush from the sudden reversion to the Victorian era  :Wink:  Blood sausage? Do you mean black pudding? Not a fan myself, though quality of black pudding is so varied. If it comes from Bury Market it'll be good though.

Might be a fairer comparison if you chose foods people actually eat  :Biggrin:  Maybe Southern Fried Chicken vs fish & chips. Chilli vs Shepherd's pie. We'll hold Yorkshire pudding in reserve for when the battle gets desperate - who can resist a nice Yorkshire pudding?

Smackdown  :Biggrin:

----------


## Paulclem

So this thread is turning into British v American culture? Should be fun. There'll be some good mileage with sport - after the cuisine has played out.

----------


## MarkBastable

> I guess too it depends on what MarkBastable is calling British food versus American. Are we comparing Figgy pudding to Chili? Blood sausage to Southern Fried Chicken?



Without disagreeing with the principle of your valid argument, I'd like to say that, as an Englishman in his fifties who was brought up by a mother who wrote cook books, I have never eaten, seen, or even heard of anyone who's eaten or seen figgy pudding. I'm not sure I even know what figgy pudding is. If it weren't for one line in a Christmas carol, I suspect that no one would know that such a thing ever existed. 

KFC, on the other hand, I'm very fond of. About twice a year, I succumb to the temptation of a bargain bucket, usually accompanied by a bottle of Chablis.

----------


## kelby_lake

In the battle between British and American theatre, I have to give it to the Americans.

----------


## MarkBastable

> In the battle between British and American theatre, I have to give it to the Americans.



In the field of twentieth-century poetry, I think the Americans have the better score too, probably because a lot of the potentially great British poets ended up here.

----------


## Alexander III

> In the field of twentieth-century poetry, I think the Americans have the better score too, probably because a lot of the potentially great British poets ended up here.


I think that is the sad truth for the British, French and Germans. A major reason why america was more dominant in Modernism. During WWI 25% of all french men aged 18-24 died. The highest number of deaths were not from the common soldier but rather the low level officers (the new and young ones) - for a lieutenant death expectancy was 65%. These 3 nations essentially lost the cream of an entire generation.

Russians though suffered even more due to the revolution as well - there an entire generation was wiped out. Russian lit which at the end of the 19th century was so strong took a huge hit after the war and revolution. And is still far away from its glory days.

So america in that regard was very fortunate.

----------


## OrphanPip

I don't think that's entirely fair, but it may play a part. After all, the US also produced major female modernist poets like Gertrude Stein, Amy Lowell, Hilda Doolittle and Marianne Moore.

----------


## MarkBastable

> So america in that regard was very fortunate.


It may be a semantic thing, but I don't think it's so much that the Americans were fortunate as the Brits (and everyone else you mention) were unfortunate. 

Then again, we can make a forlorn attempt to claim Eliot as kinda-British.

----------


## kelby_lake

> Then again, we can make a forlorn attempt to claim Eliot as kinda-British.


I thought Eliot was British?

----------


## Emil Miller

> I thought Eliot was British?


No, his ancestors were originally from England and he became a British citizen. He is buried in East Coker in Somerset.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Just face it: America is the best, most smartest, most greatest country in the whole entire world in every conceivable category that is thinkable. :nod;

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Just face it: America is the best, most smartest, most greatest country in the whole entire world in every conceivable category that is thinkable. :nod;


If you say so...I won't disagree...

----------


## OrphanPip

Well your infant mortality rate is kind of hum drum.

----------


## MarkBastable

On the other hand, you score unbeatably in the obesity category.

----------


## Emil Miller

> Just face it: America is the best, most smartest, most greatest country in the whole entire world in every conceivable category that is thinkable. :nod;


Hmm. If I were an American citizen, who had no interest in economics, I might agree, but many who are interested - especially those who are holding US government debt - are worried that the US has a one-way ticket to Palookaville. Watch this space.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Hmm. If I were an American citizen, who had no interest in economics, I might agree, but many who are interested - especially those who are holding US government debt - are worried that the US has a one-way ticket to Palookaville. Watch this space.


America is more than just the here and now...

----------


## Emil Miller

> America is more than just the here and now...


It's the here and now that's decisive where money is concerned. Just follow the stock markets.

----------


## Alexander III

> America is more than just the here and now...


In this case, I would say America is the greatest country - the America of Washington and Franklin, The america of those dutch sailors who first set eyes upon the forests of the east, the america of those men who put their belongings in a bag and went to discover the west. The America of those men who dreamt of more and chased that more; never relenting in that pursuit for what no man had dared dream before.

Of course the America of the 21st century has become in nothing more than the Europe of the 19th century. That America of before, is just that, a nostalgic remembrance.

I am not saying that the Old America is dead, or rather it's spirit is still there. Not to go very far, but it's spirit is very much in the "current arab spring"

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> In this case, I would say America is the greatest country - the America of Washington and Franklin, The america of those dutch sailors who first set eyes upon the forests of the east, the america of those men who put their belongings in a bag and went to discover the west. The America of those men who dreamt of more and chased that more; never relenting in that pursuit for what no man had dared dream before.
> 
> Of course the America of the 21st century has become in nothing more than the Europe of the 19th century. That America of before, is just that, a nostalgic remembrance.
> 
> I am not saying that the Old America is dead, or rather it's spirit is still there. Not to go very far, but it's spirit is very much in the "current arab spring"


I'd have to say that current day Europe isn't much to desire. I'll stick with America, and I'll continue to push to make my area of the world better.

----------


## MarkBastable

> In this case, I would say America is the greatest country - the America of Washington and Franklin, The america of those dutch sailors who first set eyes upon the forests of the east, the america of those men who put their belongings in a bag and went to discover the west. The America of those men who dreamt of more and chased that more; never relenting in that pursuit for what no man had dared dream before.


Though, of course, that wasn't America, except in the geographic sense. It wasn't, for the most part, the _USA_. In fact, it was, on the whole, a bunch of European colonies. 

Actually - hey, yeah - you're right. That _is_ when the country was at its best.




> I'd have to say that current day Europe isn't much to desire.


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'?

----------


## G L Wilson

I find the whole world disgusting, an attitude that lends its own kind of bias to the owner.

Also, T. S. Eliot is British. Anyone responsible for Cats the stage musical has to be a twit.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> 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'?


The same smuggish attitude that is often spouted around.

However maybe we ought to look at the similarities between Europe and America for a bit. Over here we are about 50 states (give or take a few other regions). America is just as diverse (if not more). Americans possess their own arrogant nature at times. It might even be quite safe to say that many of our pros & cons were developed from Europe from many years ago. 

However, we broke free...and I think that the UK is still a bit miffed at that.

----------


## G L Wilson

> The same smuggish attitude that is often spouted around.
> 
> However maybe we ought to look at the similarities between Europe and America for a bit. Over here we are about 50 states (give or take a few other regions). America is just as diverse (if not more). Americans possess their own arrogant nature at times. It might even be quite safe to say that many of our pros & cons were developed from Europe from many years ago. 
> 
> However, we broke free...and I think that the UK is still a bit miffed at that.


Does anyone want to talk about literature?

----------


## Silas Thorne

Yes, we would talk about a literary war between nations here, but my hero, The Incredible Hulk, after crushing Stevenson's character Mr Hyde to a bloody pulp, realised that in destroying Mr Hyde he destroyed his ancestor, and thereupon suddenly vanished, never to be seen again.

----------


## B. Laumness

> The same smuggish attitude that is often spouted around.
> 
> However maybe we ought to look at the similarities between Europe and America for a bit. *Over here we are about 50 states (give or take a few other regions). America is just as diverse (if not more).* Americans possess their own arrogant nature at times. It might even be quite safe to say that many of our pros & cons were developed from Europe from many years ago. 
> 
> However, we broke free...and I think that the UK is still a bit miffed at that.


That's typically an American reply...

----------


## MarkBastable

_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'?_ 





> The same smuggish attitude that is often spouted around.


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'?

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I find the whole world disgusting, an attitude that lends its own kind of bias to the owner.
> 
> Also, T. S. Eliot is British. Anyone responsible for Cats the stage musical has to be a twit.


Aw, I'm assuming you just don't have found Memories of Cats!  :Biggrin5:

----------


## Mr Endon

> Which has provided great work? Britain: Shakespeare, Dickens, Doyle, Eliot, Hardy etc. or The United States: Steinbeck, Twain, Melville, Fitzgerald etc.


Hmm... tough choice. I'll go for answer c) Ireland.  :Smile:

----------


## G L Wilson

Leave Shakespeare out of the equation and the British are utterly hopeless.

----------


## Patrick_Bateman

> 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.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Marlowe
> Chaucer
> Milton
> Orwell
> Maugham
> Eliot
> Bronte sister
> Austen
> Dickens
> ...


As I said, hopeless.

----------


## Emil Miller

> As I said, hopeless.


Do you have any better examples ?

----------


## G L Wilson

> Do you have any better examples ?


None that are better than Shakespeare.

----------


## Emil Miller

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.

----------


## wessexgirl

> Leave Shakespeare out of the equation and the British are utterly hopeless.


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.

----------


## MarkBastable

> As I said, hopeless.


What is that you think literature should do, that the British have for a thousand years had no hope of doing?

----------


## Arrowni

> Do you have any better examples ?


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.

----------


## Emil Miller

> 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.


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.

----------


## OrphanPip

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.

----------


## stlukesguild

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.

G.L. Wilson- As I said, hopeless.

While I'm not likely to embrace Vonny's notion that America is somehow lacking in culture and major contributions to the arts... you'd have to be somewhat clueless... if not hopeless... regarding literature to suggest that the British contributions to literature are hopeless without Shakespeare. There are few authors from any nation that might be seen as clearly superior to Chaucer, Spenser, Donne, Milton, Defoe, Sterne, Swift, Johnson, Marlowe, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Keats, Shelley, Blake, Byron, Tennyson, Browning, Wilde, Dickens, Austen, Thomas Hardy, Scott, Robert Burns, Yeats, Joyce, Beckett, etc... If British literature is "hopeless" where does that leave the rest of the world?

----------


## Emil Miller

> 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 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.


I do not think that Orwell was more versatile than Wells as virtually all of Orwell's writing was political whereas Wells, apart from writing non-scientific novels, was also an early writer of science fiction, an area in which he was very influential. Wells's sociological novels, which in my view are his best, are written from a socialist standpoint but not as markedly as those of Orwell and as he grew older his socialism weakened. I have read all of Orwell's published work and a good deal of Wells and, to my mind, apart from Animal Farm, 1984, and Homage to Catalonia only the essays are noteworthy. His other work is enjoyable but not of the same standard. This also applies to Wells where books such as The War in the Air and The New Machiavelli are not as readable and informative as his other work.
When it come to Maugham, whose work I have also read in total, it is true that he has been kept at arms length by the literati who, with some justification, look askance at best sellers but Orwell is on record as praising Maugham's work and few would deny his craftsmanship. If we were to limit authors to those who are groundbreaking, English literature would be greatly diminished and many fine writers would have remained unread.
E. M. Forster's liberalism permeates the political establishment in the UK even to this day and his influence is especially strong in the media even though, unlike Orwell, he isn't considered groundbreaking in literary circles.
Orwell is usually on the curriculum whereas Wells is not and I believe that it is because Orwell's overt socialism goes down well with what is often mistakenly referred to as the intelligentsia.

----------


## JCamilo

> 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.


Well, I do not know how much Wells goes right or wrong, (Orwell starts with the disvantage of Huxley's dystopia being more accurate than Orwell ,which still works more as representation of all past and repetition) but how much Wells influence has vanished if genetic mutation experience going wrong still a catchy theme? When Alien invasions still everywhere (heck, even crap independece day stops aliens using a virus! How original). 

The problem is that people reduce Wells to a genre writer, forgot a considerable amount of fantastic writing he wrote which had nothing to do with science fiction - a genre that was more likely labeled after him and Verne. It is like how people do not even mention Chesterton there, probally thinking "that silly fat dude who wrote detective stories". 

*{edit}*

----------


## G L Wilson

Literature is the domain of the bourgeoisie in the UK and has suffered accordingly.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Literature is the domain of the bourgeoisie in the UK and has suffered accordingly.


Has this been true for a thousand years - and if so, is it as true for every other European literature?

----------


## Emil Miller

> Literature is the domain of the bourgeoisie in the UK and has suffered accordingly.


One of the few things that is known of Shakespeare is that he came from the petit bourgeoisie.

----------


## G L Wilson

> One of the few things that is known of Shakespeare is that he came from the petit bourgeoisie.


The theatre in the UK nowadays is a bourgeois squat.

----------


## doowoop

> Which has provided great work? Britain: Shakespeare, Dickens, Doyle, Eliot, Hardy etc. or The United States: Steinbeck, Twain, Melville, Fitzgerald etc. I know many will say British and so would I, but I want to hear your opinions.


I suppose that is impossible to oppose these authors. question is incorrect. in my opinion. the first time I wanted to say, that the British, but decided that both the literary equivalent.

----------


## 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. That English is the primary language over so much of the Earth owes not to the admittedly great literary legacy of Britain, but to the imperialistic/colonial ambitions of that same nation/kingdom. Just in case you have forgotten, let me remind you that the US was essentially founded by British citizens. Even at the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the US founding fathers swore allegiance to King George. My point is that Shakespeare is hardly the exclusive property of those living across the English Channel. You see, our ancestors brought his work over when they left.

I also find it bizarre that when persons in this thread talk about the giants of 20th century literature, they talk about Rushdie, Hemingway and Steinbeck. Let's just make a couple things clear. First, that Irish mad hatter called Joyce is largely considered the great technician of 20th Century literature; Kafka, a Czech, is largely considered the great artist; and Nabokov, an American on loan from Russia and educated at Cambridge, is largely considered the great fusion of that art and technique. What this suggests is that considering literature in terms of chauvinism and patriotism is a wholly wrongheaded enterprise.

Although it is true that England/Britain has had a preeminent position in the "literary world," that position was earned not through prose, but poetry and drama. The great English poets are the greats poets of the world; here, I'm referring to that lineage running from Shakespeare to Wordsworth. As far as prose is concerned, Dickens and Austen don't look nearly so impressive when compared to Tolstoy and Chekhov.

Nation states do not, in any way, determine literary genius, which is, after all, a rare deformity that happens by chance. The artistic reader abhors such contests of national aggrandizement, not because they are "politically incorrect," but because they miss the point entirely.

----------


## MarkBastable

> 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. That English is the primary language over so much of the Earth owes not to the admittedly great literary legacy of Britain, but to the imperialistic/colonial ambitions of that same nation/kingdom. Just in case you have forgotten, let me remind you that the US was essentially founded by British citizens. Even at the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the US founding fathers swore allegiance to King George. My point is that Shakespeare is hardly the exclusive property of those living across the English Channel. You see, our ancestors brought his work over when they left.
> 
> I also find it bizarre that when persons in this thread talk about the giants of 20th century literature, they talk about Rushdie, Hemingway and Steinbeck. Let's just make a couple things clear. First, that Irish mad hatter called Joyce is largely considered the great technician of 20th Century literature; Kafka, a Czech, is largely considered the great artist; and Nabokov, an American on loan from Russia and educated at Cambridge, is largely considered the great fusion of that art and technique. What this suggests is that considering literature in terms of chauvinism and patriotism is a wholly wrongheaded enterprise.
> 
> Although it is true that England/Britain has had a preeminent position in the "literary world," that position was earned not through prose, but poetry and drama. The great English poets are the greats poets of the world; here, I'm referring to that lineage running from Shakespeare to Wordsworth. As far as prose is concerned, Dickens and Austen don't look nearly so impressive when compared to Tolstoy and Chekhov.
> 
> Nation states do not, in any way, determine literary genius, which is, after all, a rare deformity that happens by chance. The artistic reader abhors such contests of national aggrandizement, not because they are "politically incorrect," but because they miss the point entirely.


Do you have any relatives that are already members?

----------


## stuntpickle

> Do you have any relatives that are already members?


Is that a joke?

----------


## MarkBastable

> Is that a joke?


No, no. You carry on. I've read all seven of the posts you've made since you joined today, and I have to say I've rarely seen any new member establish a voice so strongly and so quickly.

i plan to enjoy it as long as you're here.

----------


## Alexander III

> 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. That English is the primary language over so much of the Earth owes not to the admittedly great literary legacy of Britain, but to the imperialistic/colonial ambitions of that same nation/kingdom. Just in case you have forgotten, let me remind you that the US was essentially founded by British citizens. Even at the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the US founding fathers swore allegiance to King George. My point is that Shakespeare is hardly the exclusive property of those living across the English Channel. You see, our ancestors brought his work over when they left.
> 
> I also find it bizarre that when persons in this thread talk about the giants of 20th century literature, they talk about Rushdie, Hemingway and Steinbeck. Let's just make a couple things clear. First, that Irish mad hatter called Joyce is largely considered the great technician of 20th Century literature; Kafka, a Czech, is largely considered the great artist; and Nabokov, an American on loan from Russia and educated at Cambridge, is largely considered the great fusion of that art and technique. What this suggests is that considering literature in terms of chauvinism and patriotism is a wholly wrongheaded enterprise.
> 
> Although it is true that England/Britain has had a preeminent position in the "literary world," that position was earned not through prose, but poetry and drama. The great English poets are the greats poets of the world; here, I'm referring to that lineage running from Shakespeare to Wordsworth. As far as prose is concerned, Dickens and Austen don't look nearly so impressive when compared to Tolstoy and Chekhov.
> 
> Nation states do not, in any way, determine literary genius, which is, after all, a rare deformity that happens by chance. The artistic reader abhors such contests of national aggrandizement, not because they are "politically incorrect," but because they miss the point entirely.

----------


## stuntpickle

> 


Apparently, the irony of calling me stupid or a troll by pasting an insulting cartoon in a post is lost on you. Perhaps when you advance beyond pictographs we can discuss it.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Apparently, the irony of calling me stupid or a troll by pasting an insulting cartoon in a post is lost on you. Perhaps when you advance beyond pictographs we can discuss it.


Being completely dumbfounded by the troll/stupid comment, I reread my post and then discovered that I said "at the time of the writing of the Declaration..." when what I meant was just before (meaning mostly Adams's complaint against parliament). Perhaps you mean my use of "citizen" for "subject." Other than that I just don't know what you mean.

----------


## 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.  :Biggrin: 
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  :Tongue: .

----------


## 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  :Aureola:

----------


## 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.

----------


## 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.
> ...



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.
> ...


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.

----------


## lawpark

> What was said by Harold Bloom... or was it James Joyce? Shakespeare and Dante divide the world between them. There is no third.


It might have been T.S.Eliot?

----------


## stuntpickle

> 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.


Look J, you have grossly misunderstood this point. My guess is that English isn't your primary language, which is fine. I mention this only because I think it might account for the misunderstanding. My point was never "to argue about the quality of english writers mentioning the english language because her colonial power," as you say. My point was to show how, since the US is, in some respects, a remnant of the British Empire with all the cultural ties that implies, it doesnt make sense to pretend that the US is somehow isolated from Shakespeare, when, in fact, Shakespeare is truly a part of American culture. When I brought up English colonialism/imperialism, I did so to show that the reason the US relies on that same culture is because we were a part of that history. We didnt just adopt it because we liked it. So, in essence, we agree completely on this point, but you just dont seem to realize it.






> 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.


Any critic, suggesting Hugo is better than all English Romantic poets, isnt worthy of the title of critic. What youre saying here makes me think youre familiar with neither the English Romantics nor what they accomplished. The Romantics didnt simply write good poetry, they completely revolutionized all of poetry. In fact, they have been called the first modern poets. The fact you would compare neo-classical poets, which necessarily implies a reversion, to the great poetic revolutionaries is a little ridiculous. The Romantics accomplished a great break with the poetic past that has not since been mended. What the Romantics accomplished is similar to Dantes use of the vernacularperhaps even more radical than that. If you want to get technical, the great original is Wordsworth, though it must be said in close cooperation with Coleridge.





> And it is not denial of aesthetic place - it is all about aesthetics. Those great writers are everywhere. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?


First, let me just say that you seem to be mostly dropping names while never adequately demonstrating more than a passing familiarity with the names.

Lets quickly examine the classical tragic archetype in the typically Aristotelian mode. You have a high-born person of generally good character whose one critical flaw leads directly to his downfall. Aristotle thought Oedipus Rex was the primary model. Achilles fits this archetype perfectly, and Ulysses, whom you mention, fits it roughly.

Now lets compare that sort of character to Hamlet. Immediately, you will notice, or should, that Hamlet oscillates wildly from bravery to cowardice, decision to indecision, deception to forthrightness; he is, in short, more human than Oedipus Rex. What would happen if you put, say, Achilles in one of Shakespeares plays? It could only seem like a parody. What would happen if you put Hamlet in Homers Iliad? Hamlet wouldnt seem like a parody; in fact, he would steal the show. Odysseus, it is true, is a much better character than Achilles, but Odysseus isnt, unfortunately, a convincing enough demonstration, as evidenced by the classical insistence on the aforementioned archetype. In fact, I would say that Odysseus is better insofar as he is more Shakespearean. Now, you may say that Ive got it backwards, and superficially this would be true. Nevertheless, the strangeness owes to that Shakespeare completely re-centered the canon and remains the critical juncture through which all literature is viewed. Although I hardly agree with Bloom when he says Shakespeare created humans, I do think he is the original chronicler of humans. What Bloom calls overhearing is the central issue; its what makes Hamlet seem at once a nihilist and a moralizer. Hamlets character is fluid, organicin fact, real. Shakespeare accomplished the same thing the Italian painters did: he made everything before him seem almost irrelevant. Not many care about medieval representational painting simply because it looks similar to ancient pictographs when considered next to the work of da Vinci, who finally accomplished what everyone had been attempting since the beginning, which was he made it all convincing.

Look, Dante is a magnificent poet, a giant, in fact. And he can only be surpassed by the likes of Shakespeare, but he is, in fact, surpassed, and by a fairly wide margin. If you put Dante the character next to Hamlet, what sort of conversation could the two have? MY guess is that it would look a lot like the conversation between Hamlet and Polonius and invariably it would lead to Hamlet, the possessor of infinite complexity, largely ridiculing Dante and his mad quest. Hamlet exists in more dimensions than Dante does. One of the most astonishing accomplishments of Shakespeare was that he made Dante look like a classical writer, which is essentially what the Italian Masters did to their precursors in painting.

Lets be clear about Dante. His reputation doesnt rest on Vita Nuova, which is hardly ever taught as anything but an introduction to the Commedia, nor does it rest on the Commedia; it rests exclusively on Inferno. Why does Paradiso pale in comparison to Inferno? It, like Miltons Pradise Regained, fails to adequately portray the divine. In fact, Dante explicitly admits he is incapable of expressing his vision of God. So, at the end of his quest, Dante offers us very little. He does, of course, describe the layout of Heaven, but the great artistic fusion of Inferno, in which the layout is Satan, himself, is completely absent.

Shakespeare does what Dante cant. He intricately describes the Yahweh character; only Shakespeare calls him King Lear.

When you say things like Hamlet is reading a book before he see a ghost, I start to think you havent even read Hamlet. And when you imply that scenery is somehow an inherent property of poetry, I begin to think you misunderstand poetry. If, however, you want to discuss imagery, I would say Shakespeare is obviously Dantes superior. To take arms against a sea of troubles is a figuration unequaled in all of Dante. The bit about the cameos and the best muse seem like categories that arent even awarded, much like giving a movie an Oscar for best dog.

If you think the prevailing opinion is that Dante is superior to Shakespeare, I would say you simply dont know the prevailing opinion.

----------


## JCamilo

> Any critic, suggesting Hugo is better than all English Romantic poets, isnt worthy of the title of critic.


I am writing a letter to Jorge Luis Borges. He will not mind to be not called a critic, but then, he would say: Yes, Hugo is one of the finest poets ever and... well, I wont mention that the only romantic he do not put down is Wordsworth. But of course, Borges is not english, so he would not know.




> What youre saying here makes me think youre familiar with neither the English Romantics nor what they accomplished.


Silly thing, one of the points favorable to your argument is that it is quite easy to be familiar with all those guys. 




> The Romantics didnt simply write good poetry, they completely revolutionized all of poetry. In fact, they have been called the first modern poets. The fact you would compare neo-classical poets, which necessarily implies a reversion, to the great poetic revolutionaries is a little ridiculous. The Romantics accomplished a great break with the poetic past that has not since been mended. What the Romantics accomplished is similar to Dantes use of the vernacularperhaps even more radical than that. If you want to get technical, the great original is Wordsworth, though it must be said in close cooperation with Coleridge.


All this quite fine, except the original romantics are the germans and Coleridge and Wordsworth are working with Schiller rather anything else. And of course, they didn't got near Dante. Dante didnt modernized a language, he proposed one and ended with 1000 years domain of Latim. He is the Renaissence begin. Not even Shakespeare was the head or end of an age, much less the english romantics. 





> First, let me just say that you seem to be mostly dropping names while never adequately demonstrating more than a passing familiarity with the names.


Mostly because your arguments are silly name gloatings. You are just claiming how a group of 6 poets was unmatched in any other culture, when it is easy to drop several names which status and importance that easily match them. Quite easy. 




> Now lets compare that sort of character to Hamlet. Immediately, you will notice, or should, that Hamlet oscillates wildly from bravery to cowardice, decision to indecision, deception to forthrightness; he is, in short, more human than Oedipus Rex. What would happen if you put, say, Achilles in one of Shakespeares plays? It could only seem like a parody. What would happen if you put Hamlet in Homers Iliad? Hamlet wouldnt seem like a parody; in fact, he would steal the show.


Low, albeit Hamlet is a high-born person of generally good character which critical flaws lead to his downfall, your simple idea is already a laughable paradoy. And you know, any can play this game. Put Don Quixote in Hamlet, and Quixote would make it a paradoy, with his almost as infinite multiplicity. And this because Shakespeare with all his power, is not a master of comedy. He may be a master of irony inside the drama, but the pure comedy of Cervantes or Moliere? Even Shakespeare bows while Homer nods. 




> Now, you may say that Ive got it backwards, and superficially this would be true. Nevertheless, the strangeness owes to that Shakespeare completely re-centered the canon and remains the critical juncture through which all literature is viewed. Although I hardly agree with Bloom when he says Shakespeare created humans, I do think he is the original chronicler of humans. What Bloom calls overhearing is the central issue; its what makes Hamlet seem at once a nihilist and a moralizer. Hamlets character is fluid, organicin fact, real. Shakespeare accomplished the same thing the Italian painters did: he made everything before him seem almost irrelevant. Not many care about medieval representational painting simply because it looks similar to ancient pictographs when considered next to the work of da Vinci, who finally accomplished what everyone had been attempting since the beginning, which was he made it all convincing.


Except that even Bloom reckonized Hamlet archetypical in Jesus by Mark. Shakespeare is awesome, but this is far to exagerating. He was not the center of anything when alive (England culture was marginal to dominating Spanish and French culture, and even afterwards, german culture bloomed strongly), he became after, indeed, a re-reading of Hamlet by romantic poets, found something not even Shakespeare shared (as he was no romantic at al, as the same Coleridge that praised him was very contemptous to share high literature with the masses, something Shakespeare never had a problem). The idea that neo classicism is backwards is hilarious, considering how Shakespeare owned much to Ovid and others, not mention his culture was only possible after Spencer, Chaucer, etc took to england Dante, Petrarca and Boccaccio neo-classicism. In fact, Homer cult was only strengthned after Shakespeare, with translatations by Chaucer or Pope, something all romantics reckonize without fear. 
Shakespeare invention of human was nothing but a re-reading of all humans before him, specially the very invention of human that happened with italians to end the middle ages. Homer is not shakespearean, it is Shakespeare that is homeric (of second rate, of course). And many would point, there is a Quixote above to be and not to be, above all. 





> Look, Dante is a magnificent poet, a giant, in fact. And he can only be surpassed by the likes of Shakespeare, but he is, in fact, surpassed, and by a fairly wide margin If you put Dante the character next to Hamlet, what sort of conversation could the two have?


What kind of silly argument is this? If I put Snoopy near to Hamlet what short of conversation could the two have???? And We are still waiting for the wide margim we talk. Last time, That Comedy still holds the "Divine" near it. You know it is something like a critical judgment which very few dired to contest? (One that did, smashed both Dante and Shakespeare, so it still a draw)




> MY guess is that it would look a lot like the conversation between Hamlet and Polonius and invariably it would lead to Hamlet, the possessor of infinite complexity, largely ridiculing Dante and his mad quest. Hamlet exists in more dimensions than Dante does. One of the most astonishing accomplishments of Shakespeare was that he made Dante look like a classical writer, which is essentially what the Italian Masters did in painting.


Are you out of your mind? Shakespeare made Dante look like a classical writer? It is Dante that did it. Centuries before Shakespeare was born Dante was know as a classical writer. The very idea that you are using as argument the "infinite" shows there is no argument. I will just say, put SHakespeare near the infinite blablabla of blablabla and it is over, as the infinite is meaningless. 




> Lets be clear about Dante. His reputation doesnt rest on Vita Nuova, which is hardly ever taught as anything but an introduction to the Commedia, nor does it rest on the Commedia; it rests exclusively on Inferno. Why does Paradiso pale in comparison to Inferno?


Thank god his reputation does not rest on Vita Nuova, altough it would be enough to make him a great poet. It is in the Comedy. But I never saw a single edition of the Comedy to be introduced by Vita Nuova. In fact, it is not mentioned near the Comedy unless you read Dante enough. And bad readers stop on Inferno. Dante Paradise is a masterwork and most people point it is the superior part of the comedy, not inferno. You seem to think "most famous" as the "better". 





> It, like Miltons Pradise Regained, fails to adequately portray the divine. In fact, Dante explicitly admits he is incapable of expressing his vision of God. So, at the end of his quest, Dante offers us very little. He does, of course, describe the layout of Heaven, but the great artistic fusion of Inferno, in which the layout is Satan, himself, is completely absent.


I am very confused. The layout of hell is Satan? And Dante EXPLICITLY say? When, his deadbed? Are you going to dare to say Dante explicity says anything in the Comedy?




> Shakespeare does what Dante cant. He intricately describes the Yahweh character; only Shakespeare calls him King Lear.


No, only Bloom does it and it should be notable Shakespeare never claimed it. Dante had no intention to describe god, so, it is like I am saying: Dante do what Shakespeare never could: he creates a Muse. Or talks with his influence. Or say that none created Sherlock Holmes. Hey, neither created a talking stuffed tiger named Harold. All failed where Bill Watterson had success. 




> When you say things like Hamlet is reading a book before he see a ghost, I start to think you havent even read Hamlet.


Sure, if you think so. I never read, nor Hamlet. He often get bored with wordes, wordes... 





> And when you imply that scenery is somehow an inherent property n of poetry, I begin to think you misunderstand poetry.


I didnt imply anything. You should read better, unlike Dante, I have no complexity. 





> If, however, you want to discuss imagery, I would say Shakespeare is obviously Dantes superior. To take arms against a sea of troubles is a figuration unequaled in all of Dante. The bit about the cameos and the best muse seem like categories that arent even awarded, much like giving a movie an Oscar for best dog.


Sorry, but really? To take arms against a sea of troubles? This equate to making the ideal of perfect muse, the description of hell-purgatory-heaven circles that would and still last, to the rose of paradise, the oriental saphire, the last travel of ulysses, the 3 beasts... Sorry, but if we remove the cameos, shakespeare plays will end in 3 pages and 1 monologue. 




> If you think the prevailing opinion is that Dante is superior to Shakespeare, I would say you simply dont know the prevailing opinion.


The day we have the Divine Hamlet, you can start talking about the prevaling opinion.

----------


## stlukesguild

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... 

And certainly they are great poets. I don't question that. Blake is surely among my absolute favorites. But yes... their reputation eclipses many others as good or nearly as good. But this holds equally true of Romanticism in music. Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, etc... often eclipse composers of equal... or even greater (Mozart, Bach, Handel) abilities. I suspect it has much to do with the obsession with "emotions" or "feelings" and the almost teenager-like egocentrism of personal experience that Romanticism reveled in. It's not surprising that the heirs of Romanticism such as Ginsberg, Plath, Sexton, and the Beats have equally eclipsed the reputations of far greater poets... especially among younger readers. It also makes sense that Byron has become the seen as almost the least of the Romantics considering that his narrative manner hearkens back in many ways to pre-Romantic poetry. Intriguingly... Romanticism in the visual arts has never gained such a status. Rather, it is Impressionism that stands as the unrivaled era with the larger audience.

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. 

That and WWII and the subsequent absolute dominance of the world's economy by the US.

Of the six, Byron was really imense. He was copied in all europe...

In many ways he's the reason that the English-speaking world can't take the Russian claims for Pushkin seriously. _Eugene Onegin_ comes off as a clear Byronic rip-off. The poetry of Pushkin in his native tongue must be spectacular to have earned him the reputation he holds among Russians.

he is the guy, the is the pop star, he is the romantic model for all other languages... he was copied over and over until the modernists left found another model (which is Baudelaire of course). 

Of course Baudelaire embraces certain Romantic elements... but he is also the anti-Romantic... the Modernist. He is the poet of the modern city with all its squalor and decadence as opposed to the pastoral poet singing the delights of nature. 

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...

Yes... his critical efforts are of great interest. I forget which writer suggested that it was German metaphysics (as opposed to drugs) that proved Coleridge' undoing as a poet.

Shelley is often linked to juvenile rebellion, which is bad...

Unless you are still a juvenile... :Biggrin5: 

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.

Unfortunately, he also continued to churn out a body of mediocre poetry long after his "genius" had departed.

And Blake, which weirdness speaks loud to closed groups, albeit, most of his famous works are his easier poems. 

Yes... unfortunately, Blake is often mistaken and admired by young rebels and "weirdos" everywhere for all the wrong reasons. He is put forth as the self-taught poet/artist with the notion that he came out of nowhere... when in fact he was very well-read and well trained as an artist. He simply admired a lot of literature and art that no one else at the time took seriously. He had perhaps the highest aspirations... intending to invent his own cosmology in a manner to rival Dante... and who wouldn't fail at such a task? But the failure is often brilliant.

----------


## stlukesguild

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

Most teenagers do. :Yesnod:

----------


## Arrowni

> Any critic, suggesting Hugo is better than all English Romantic poets, isnt worthy of the title of critic.


This argument makes me think you are grossly overestimating english literature.




> Shakespeare does what Dante cant. He intricately describes the Yahweh character; only Shakespeare calls him King Lear.


This comment made me frown. The Commedia is all about Yahweh, it's the biggest character competing to Dante. Now _Jesus_ is absent, but he's much less of an universal thesis than God Himself.




> If you think the prevailing opinion is that Dante is superior to Shakespeare, I would say you simply dont know the prevailing opinion.


I don't know if you're just counting english speaking societies, which I assume would justify what you consider a prevailing opinion. I would assume Shakespeare is more read than Dante too, and even that several cultures won't recognize either Dante nor Shakespeare as the two top dogs on poetry.

We've every reason to dislike Dante and every reason to like Shakespeare, but the Commedia is the biggest literary work of all time, it became a classic right off the bat and continues to seduce us. It has prevailed longer without any sort of -or much less- cult of personality towards Dante, written in a marginal language, back when literature didn't exist properly during the so-called Dark Ages. At the XIV century Dante was already depicted next to Homer and Virgil, that sounds like prevailing to me.

----------


## G L Wilson

> George Orwell held Milton in high esteem, and I hold George Orwell in high esteem.
> 
> Most teenagers do.


Why do you say that?

----------


## stuntpickle

> I am writing a letter to Jorge Luis Borges. He will not mind to be not called a critic, but then, he would say: Yes, Hugo is one of the finest poets ever and... well, I wont mention that the only romantic he do not put down is Wordsworth. But of course, Borges is not english, so he would not know.


Borges was hardly some huge critic.




> All this quite fine, except the original romantics are the germans and Coleridge and Wordsworth are working with Schiller rather anything else. And of course, they didn't got near Dante. Dante didnt modernized a language, he proposed one and ended with 1000 years domain of Latim. He is the Renaissence begin. Not even Shakespeare was the head or end of an age, much less the english romantics.


The great Romantic innovations in form, expression, mode owe to Wordsworth, not Schiller. I never said Shakespeare was "the head of an age;" I sad he was the best.




> Low, albeit Hamlet is a high-born person of generally good character which critical flaws lead to his downfall, your simple idea is already a laughable paradoy. And you know, any can play this game. Put Don Quixote in Hamlet, and Quixote would make it a paradoy, with his almost as infinite multiplicity. And this because Shakespeare with all his power, is not a master of comedy. He may be a master of irony inside the drama, but the pure comedy of Cervantes or Moliere? Even Shakespeare bows while Homer nods.


Listen, that model of character isn't mine, but Aristotle's, you know, the guy who started the whole aesthetic theory thing. Take it up with him. Don Quixote the character is hardly the equal of Hamlet. Quixote is hardly the equal of Anna Karenina. There's a reason the largely episodic work of Don Quixote is only praised as the quintessential novel by persons who have staked their careers on it. Moliere is mostly an historic example of Enlightenment thinking in drama, aesthetically he's just not that important. Of course, you could always demonstrate how that is wrong, rather than pretending to divine the opinions of a dead man who lived centuries before Cervantes or Moliere--if he even lived at all.






> Except that even Bloom reckonized Hamlet archetypical in Jesus by Mark. Shakespeare is awesome, but this is far to exagerating. He was not the center of anything when alive (England culture was marginal to dominating Spanish and French culture, and even afterwards, german culture bloomed strongly), he became after, indeed, a re-reading of Hamlet by romantic poets, found something not even Shakespeare shared (as he was no romantic at al, as the same Coleridge that praised him was very contemptous to share high literature with the masses, something Shakespeare never had a problem). The idea that neo classicism is backwards is hilarious, considering how Shakespeare owned much to Ovid and others, not mention his culture was only possible after Spencer, Chaucer, etc took to england Dante, Petrarca and Boccaccio neo-classicism. In fact, Homer cult was only strengthned after Shakespeare, with translatations by Chaucer or Pope, something all romantics reckonize without fear.


Okay, before you offer more hand-waving, you need to understand that what you are doing fails to examine anything remotely aesthetic, which is the entire problem. Who read who, doesn't deal with the artifact, itself--the text. I never said "neo classicism is backwards," so stop putting words into my mouth. The word "revert" has none of the pejorative connotations of "backwards." Neo-classicism is explicitly a return to something that happened previously; that's not an insult, but a definition. To suggest something neoclassical is somehow as original as something entirely new is irrational--by definition. Your point that Spencer and Chaucer wrote before Shakespeare is moot. Are we even having the same discussion here?




> Shakespeare invention of human was nothing but a re-reading of all humans before him, specially the very invention of human that happened with italians to end the middle ages. Homer is not shakespearean, it is Shakespeare that is homeric (of second rate, of course). And many would point, there is a Quixote above to be and not to be, above all.


There's is absolutely nothing in history before Shakespeare demonstrating as robust a character as Hamlet--nothing that suggests the intricacy of intellect and humor, which is to say nothing as convincingly human. To mention the cartoon of Don Quixote, who does little more than get bopped on the head through an endless string of episodes, as approaching Hamlet's complexity is just--I don't know--unconscionable.




> What kind of silly argument is this? If I put Snoopy near to Hamlet what short of conversation could the two have???? And We are still waiting for the wide margim we talk. Last time, That Comedy still holds the "Divine" near it. You know it is something like a critical judgment which very few dired to contest? (One that did, smashed both Dante and Shakespeare, so it still a draw)


What kind of argument is that? I'd say it's similar to one Bloom used. I think your example of Snoopy is strangely appropriate because it more drastically effects the strange deficit of character that I think is evident with Dante and Hamlet. One is obviously more multi-dimensional than the other. The fact that you think the word "Divine" is any kind of stumbling block for anyone or anything, makes me think you completely misunderstand its use. Whoever smashed Dante and Shakespeare doesn't matter. Are you even slightly aware of how to judge a work aesthetically? I only ask because you haven't yet demonstrated it, and when I actually did you basically insulted Aristotle's aesthetic theory. I am very seriously asking if you understand how to judge something outside of a historical context and on the merits of the work, itself?






> Are you out of your mind? Shakespeare made Dante look like a classical writer? It is Dante that did it. Centuries before Shakespeare was born Dante was know as a classical writer. The very idea that you are using as argument the "infinite" shows there is no argument. I will just say, put SHakespeare near the infinite blablabla of blablabla and it is over, as the infinite is meaningless.


I'm saying Shakespeare made Dante look dated. Despite Dante's innovation, his work seems to hew more closely to an explicitly classical tradition of epic poets, whereas Shakespeare seems thoroughly original, despite having influences. There's a reason Shakespeare's characters are used even today and Dante's are not. Dante's characters simply aren't intellectually sufficient to pass muster with a modern audience. They're about as complex as Odysseus. To rewrite a Dante type character would seem like archaism today. Hamlet is still clever as ever.




> Thank god his reputation does not rest on Vita Nuova, altough it would be enough to make him a great poet. It is in the Comedy. But I never saw a single edition of the Comedy to be introduced by Vita Nuova. In fact, it is not mentioned near the Comedy unless you read Dante enough. And bad readers stop on Inferno. Dante Paradise is a masterwork and most people point it is the superior part of the comedy, not inferno. You seem to think "most famous" as the "better".


I never said Vita Nuova was printed inside the Commedia. I meant that it is generally read as an introduction to Dante and Beatrice. If all Dante had written was Vita Nuova, we might not even know who he was. If all Shakespeare had written was Hamlet, we would still know him. If all he had written was King Lear, we would still know him. I daresay if all he had written was Macbeth, we would still know him. I never said I stopped at Inferno; again, stop putting words in my mouth to make yourself feel better. I said that Paradiso was an aesthetic disaster in comparison to Inferno and even explained why. In case you don't know, that's essentially what you have to when examining a particular work: pick a particular section and examine it in the particular.







> I am very confused. The layout of hell is Satan? And Dante EXPLICITLY say? When, his deadbed? Are you going to dare to say Dante explicity says anything in the Comedy?


Satan is part of the landscape of hell, and as far as character goes, he might as well be a rock. Dante, the character, says any number of things explicitly all throughout the Commedia, which I presume you have read.






> No, only Bloom does it and it should be notable Shakespeare never claimed it. Dante had no intention to describe god, so, it is like I am saying: Dante do what Shakespeare never could: he creates a Muse. Or talks with his influence. Or say that none created Sherlock Holmes. Hey, neither created a talking stuffed tiger named Harold. All failed where Bill Watterson had success.


I think it's fairly obvious that Yahweh is the archetype for Shakspeare's Lear--a figure terrible in his power, who relinquishes his power to his children who then promptly forsake him. You say Dante had no intention of describing God, but then showing up at his house seems a little ridiculous. The equivalent is like Stoker's Dracula being invisible throughout the entire novel. Muse, muse, muse, you act like having a muse is something more than pedestrian by Dante's time. Muses were fairly stock items insofar as epic poems were concerned. There's hardly anything original in Dante having one. That's just Dante strictly writing in the epic mode. If you think Dante having a muse is some critical marvel, then you are obviously bereft of the necessary tools to aesthetically judge anything. That a muse is so central to Dante's work indicts it, rather than praises it.






> Sure, if you think so. I never read, nor Hamlet. He often get bored with wordes, wordes...


I never said there wasn't a book in Hamlet. I said that saying "Hamlet reads a book before he sees a ghost" makes me think you've never read the play. It would be like me saying Dante goes to heaven before he meets Virgil. The book has nothing to do with the ghost, and you have the chronology all wrong--mistakes that seem likely only if the person making them has never read the play.







> I didnt imply anything. You should read better, unlike Dante, I have no complexity.


Don't pretend to insult my reading, especially when you can't even get Hamlet anywhere close to right.







> Sorry, but really? To take arms against a sea of troubles? This equate to making the ideal of perfect muse, the description of hell-purgatory-heaven circles that would and still last, to the rose of paradise, the oriental saphire, the last travel of ulysses, the 3 beasts... Sorry, but if we remove the cameos, shakespeare plays will end in 3 pages and 1 monologue.


Apparently, you have no idea what a rhetorical figuration is. I'm beginning to think, more and more, that you simply don't have the tools to critically analyse anything. If you think Shakespeare's plays are filled with "cameos" and that without them there would only be one monologue, then you have obviously never read Shakespeare.

Take Lear, for instance. Lear, himself, Edmund, Edgar, Kent and even Lear's fool are more fully fleshed characters than anything Dante ever dreamed.





> The day we have the Divine Hamlet, you can start talking about the prevaling opinion.


This line, above all else, gives me the impression that you're a teenager, but if that's the case, there's nothing wrong with it.

----------


## stlukesguild

Any critic, suggesting Hugo is better than all English Romantic poets, isnt worthy of the title of critic. 

Why? How much have you actually read by Hugo? Hugo produced a vast oeuvre that rival's Goethe's in scale and scope including theater, novels, criticism and a huge body of poetry. His reputation among French critics seems to place him as a poet cheek to cheek with Baudelaire. 

What youre saying here makes me think youre familiar with neither the English Romantics nor what they accomplished. The Romantics didnt simply write good poetry, they completely revolutionized all of poetry. 

No one has questioned whether you are familiar with the English Romantics... but perhaps the question is how familiar you are with poets of equal abilities in other countries. 

In fact, they have been called the first modern poets. The fact you would compare neo-classical poets, which necessarily implies a reversion, to the great poetic revolutionaries is a little ridiculous. 

So is the assumption that being a poetic revolutionary makes one inherently a better poet that a neo-classicist. baudelaire remains a greater poet than Rimbaud... in spite of the fact that Rimbaud is far more the revolutionary in form and structure.

The Romantics accomplished a great break with the poetic past that has not since been mended. What the Romantics accomplished is similar to Dantes use of the vernacularperhaps even more radical than that. If you want to get technical, the great original is Wordsworth, though it must be said in close cooperation with Coleridge.

So what exactly is this great break as you define it... and how is it the product solely of the English Romantics... as if the rest of Europe had its head up its as$.

Look, Dante is a magnificent poet, a giant, in fact. And he can only be surpassed by the likes of Shakespeare, but he is, in fact, surpassed, and by a fairly wide margin. 

According to you... and perhaps a few others who haven't read Dante. The idea that when an artist institutes a evolutionary new approach to form or narrative or character or whatever he or she surpasses his her predecessors is ridiculous. Rembrandt surpassed Michelangelo in terms of his expression of the human character in painting. In many ways he is the artist most akin to Shakespeare mastery of the invention of human beings. However, he in no ways surpasses Michelangelo... in spite of the fact that the older artist's characters are far less clearly human... far more superhuman. Even a critic such as Harold Bloom who worships Shakespeare is quite careful in comparing him to Dante. One would never read such a naive suggestion that Shakespeare surpasses Dante by a large margin... nor Homer, Milton, or Cervantes for that matter.

If you put Dante the character next to Hamlet, what sort of conversation could the two have? MY guess is that it would look a lot like the conversation between Hamlet and Polonius and invariably it would lead to Hamlet, the possessor of infinite complexity, largely ridiculing Dante and his mad quest. 

Comparisons run both ways in art. This is something T.S. Eliot well understood when he rejected the notion of criticism as being a competition as the "better/worse". You are suggestion that Dante would appear out of place in the setting of a Shakespearean play... but Hamlet or Lear would appear just as out of place in the _Comedia_.

Lets be clear about Dante. His reputation doesnt rest on Vita Nuova, which is hardly ever taught as anything but an introduction to the Commedia...

You have repeatedly suggested you suspect others of not having read this or that... but when you make such a comment I can only suggest you are basing your assertions regarding Dante upon undergraduate introductions to world literature... certainly not an in-depth exploration of the poet in question. The Vita Nuova essentially establishes the sonnet cycle format... with a prose frame structure. The sonnets themselves are certainly read as much by Italians as those of Shakespeare in the English-language world. Let's face it Ronsard, Gongora, Racine, DuBellay, Tasso, Arosto, Calderon, etc... were all towering figures of European literature... but are hardly known in the English-speaking world for the simply reason of lack of access to translation. The greatest... most towering works are repeatedly translated (Homer, Virgil, the _Comedia_, Don Quixote) and this leaves us with a skewed view of the whole of what writers... and entire literary cultures have to offer.

...nor does it rest on the Commedia; it rests exclusively on Inferno. Why does Paradiso pale in comparison to Inferno? It, like Miltons Pradise Regained, fails to adequately portray the divine. 

Now I am really starting to suspect an analysis based on sophomore World Lit. Most courses in the English-speaking world focus upon the _Inferno_ for the simple reason that it is the most dramatic... the most connected to life as we know it... especially in the modern world. Very few of those who have seriously read the whole of the Comedia would begin to suggest that the Paradiso is a failure... let alone one as spectacular as Milton's. A great many actually would argue that the final book is the most brilliant in terms of sheer poetry.

In fact, Dante explicitly admits he is incapable of expressing his vision of God. So, at the end of his quest, Dante offers us very little. He does, of course, describe the layout of Heaven, but the great artistic fusion of Inferno, in which the layout is Satan, himself, is completely absent.

I'm sensing an obsession with realism over the poetic or the abstract.

----------


## stlukesguild

Borges was hardly some huge critic.

With that one line you have completely undermined any credibility you might have had. :Smilielol5:

----------


## Arrowni

> Don Quixote the character is hardly the equal of Hamlet. Quixote is hardly the equal of Anna Karenina.


I think this observation is something fair, as I wouldn't say characterization is the point of Cervantes's work, his evolution is a literature beyond characters. Calderon's Segismundo is closer to Hamlet and done just a few years later.






> I'm saying Shakespeare made Dante look dated. Despite Dante's innovation, his work seems to hew more closely to an explicitly classical tradition of epic poets, whereas Shakespeare seems thoroughly original, despite having influences. There's a reason Shakespeare's characters are used even today and Dante's are not. Dante's characters simply aren't intellectually sufficient to pass muster with a modern audience. They're about as complex as Odysseus. To rewrite a Dante type character would seem like archaism today. Hamlet is still clever as ever.


Maybe you just don't like his characterization, but that hardly makes Shakespeare a better _poet_. Is not as if Shakespeare's characterization was all that superior to his peers during his life, Dante in the other hand was head and shoulders about pretty much all other authors in Europe.





> Borges was hardly some huge critic.


 :Shocked: 


He was a better reader than anyone in this forum and likely everyone _alive_.

I'll tell you what he would tell you "go read books".

----------


## stuntpickle

> Why? How much have you actually read by Hugo? Hugo produced a vast oeuvre that rival's Goethe's in scale and scope including theater, novels, criticism and a huge body of poetry. His reputation among French critics seems to place him as a poet cheek to cheek with Baudelaire.


Are we talking about Victor Hugo? If we are, I will admit to having read a fair portion of his work. My understanding, however, is that his fiction is better than his poetry. I haven't read that much of his poetry, as what I did read seemed not particularly special. But then again, his novels didn't greatly impress me either. I am, however, willing to revise my opinion. If you will select what you think is his best poem, I will certainly read it. To be honest, I am not impressed by comparisons to Goethe. And I think any conversation about literature is better the less it relies on "criticism," of which, by this time, I am overfull. Often, I feel that reliance on tertiary source material is an excuse not to think for oneself. Besides is there any criticism now that isn't thoroughly suffused with "theory" and bad philosophy?




> No one has questioned whether you are familiar with the English Romantics... but perhaps the question is how familiar you are with poets of equal abilities in other countries.


You have misunderstood me. I said SOMEONE ELSE seemed as though he wasn't familiar.





> So is the assumption that being a poetic revolutionary makes one inherently a better poet that a neo-classicist. baudelaire remains a greater poet than Rimbaud... in spite of the fact that Rimbaud is far more the revolutionary in form and structure.


I think if one is to try and objectively evaluate a work, that innovation and influence must necessarily play a part in the evaluation.





> So what exactly is this great break as you define it... and how is it the product solely of the English Romantics... as if the rest of Europe had its head up its as$.


I think the Romantics instigated an inward turn in that Wordsworth could happen upon a cottage, have little more than his thoughts and still have a poem. I think the modern confessional mode owes largely to the English Romantics. I would never say "solely" English, but rather _primarily_ English, which is a subtle, but important, difference.




> According to you... and perhaps a few others who haven't read Dante. The idea that when an artist institutes a evolutionary new approach to form or narrative or character or whatever he or she surpasses his her predecessors is ridiculous. Rembrandt surpassed Michelangelo in terms of his expression of the human character in painting. In many ways he is the artist most akin to Shakespeare mastery of the invention of human beings. However, he in no ways surpasses Michelangelo... in spite of the fact that the older artist's characters are far less clearly human... far more superhuman. Even a critic such as Harold Bloom who worships Shakespeare is quite careful in comparing him to Dante. One would never read such a naive suggestion that Shakespeare surpasses Dante by a large margin... nor Homer, Milton, or Cervantes for that matter.


Despite your insinuation, I have read Dante. In regards to Rembrandt, you would never think he had been influenced by crude medievalists with skewed perspectives, as he was very obviously working in the same tradition as Michelangelo; once the Italian Renaissance occurred, there was a complete shift in the tradition; this same variety of shift occurred with Shakespeare. You might say, no, this shift occurred with Dante, but the truth is that Dante chose to work in a tradition preceding even the medieval one.





> Comparisons run both ways in art. This is something T.S. Eliot well understood when he rejected the notion of criticism as being a competition as the "better/worse". You are suggestion that Dante would appear out of place in the setting of a Shakespearean play... but Hamlet or Lear would appear just as out of place in the _Comedia_.


I agree that Hamlet would look out of place in the Divine Comedy, but for entirely different reasons. With Hamlet, the Divine Comedy would look like Who Framed Roger Rabbit wherein a human congregates with cartoons. Do you understand what I mean when I say that Achilles, for instance, would look like a parody in Hamlet? The problem is that I think it's the Divine Comedy that would look like a parody were Hamlet ever to enter it; he would make sure of it. Were Hamlet to suddenly appear in the Divine Comedy and deliver his to-be-or-not soliloquy, he would make everything Dante had said until then seem quaint and fairly unimportant. Were Dante, however, to show up in Hamlet, Hamlet would make him into a figure of fun.




> You have repeatedly suggested you suspect others of not having read this or that... but when you make such a comment I can only suggest you are basing your assertions regarding Dante upon undergraduate introductions to world literature... certainly not an in-depth exploration of the poet in question. The Vita Nuova essentially establishes the sonnet cycle format... with a prose frame structure. The sonnets themselves are certainly read as much by Italians as those of Shakespeare in the English-language world. Let's face it Ronsard, Gongora, Racine, DuBellay, Tasso, Arosto, Calderon, etc... were all towering figures of European literature... but are hardly known in the English-speaking world for the simply reason of lack of access to translation. The greatest... most towering works are repeatedly translated (Homer, Virgil, the _Comedia_, Don Quixote) and this leaves us with a skewed view of the whole of what writers... and entire literary cultures have to offer.


In case you don't know, a graduate education differs from an undergraduate one mostly insofar as it is more ridiculous, with a greater emphasis on "theory" and various multicultural niceties of the precise variety you seem to be espousing right now. I'm not sure one can actually get a graduate education discussing the aesthetic virtues of either Dante or Shakespeare, as opposed to investigating Derrida's inscrutable writings and listening to lectures on "queer theory." To even discuss the aesthetics of Shakespeare is to be an instrument of ethnocentric patriarchy, colluding to obscure the importance of James Baldwin and George Sand.





> Now I am really starting to suspect an analysis based on sophomore World Lit. Most courses in the English-speaking world focus upon the _Inferno_ for the simple reason that it is the most dramatic... the most connected to life as we know it... especially in the modern world. Very few of those who have seriously read the whole of the Comedia would begin to suggest that the Paradiso is a failure... let alone one as spectacular as Milton's. A great many actually would argue that the final book is the most brilliant in terms of sheer poetry.


If you think God's invisibility in Paradiso is no big deal, then good for you. I think it's a fairly obvious problem, especially when Satan plays such a central (pun intended) role in his Inferno.





> I'm sensing an obsession with realism over the poetic or the abstract.


I'm hardly a realist. My favorite writers are Nabokov and Kafka. You confuse precision with realism.

By the way, what's with all the ellipses?

----------


## stuntpickle

> I'll tell you what he would tell you "go read books".


And I'll tell you what Nabokov would tell you: stop reading books and start trying to understand one.

----------


## Arrowni

Not really, Nabokov would've understood the joke.

Do you honestly think Borges is not a solid critic?

----------


## stuntpickle

> Not really, Nabokov would've understood the joke.
> 
> Do you honestly think Borges is not a solid critic?


I admit that I'm thoroughly unconcerned with criticism in general. I think Borges is a far better writer than critic, though I will admit that my acquaintance with his criticism has been passing. Citing Borges on the Romantics seems to me like citing Tolstoy on Shakespeare or Nabokov on Dostoevsky. Because I'm particularly impressed by Coleridge and Keats, I'm apt to ignore someone who makes light of the English Romantics.

----------


## Arrowni

Well, with that context considered I get your point. Although I don't know exactly the context of the citation regarding Hugo and the English Romantics, I do know that Borges deeply appreciated Hugo's poetry and that he was an english language specialist. Of course it could be a personal affinity, but to explain the context, Borges is a very well read critic who put a lot of emphasis in the different evolutions of how we conceive literature, and in general it makes for a great read even disregarding the conclusion of his analyses. I'd recommend it personally if you ever take on reading literary criticism.

I'm sorry if I was too rude before as I was a little puzzled.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Well, with that context considered I get your point. Although I don't know exactly the context of the citation regarding Hugo and the English Romantics, I do know that Borges deeply appreciated Hugo's poetry and that he was an english language specialist. Of course it could be a personal affinity, but to explain the context, Borges is a very well read critic who put a lot of emphasis in the different evolutions of how we conceive literature, and in general it makes for a great read even disregarding the conclusion of his analyses. I'd recommend it personally if you ever take on reading literary criticism.
> 
> I'm sorry if I was too rude before as I was a little puzzled.


I don't think you were rude at all, and it was never my intention to be rude to you. Unfortunately, when writing, I often seem ruder than I intend; I'm generally just passionate or simply trying to rib someone, which comes off better in person.

Frankly, I find it absurd that I'm railing against Dante whom I love, but I never expected to get into a Dante vs. Shakespeare discussion in the first place.

By the way, I have read a lot of criticism because I was forced to. But I often felt the critics were more interested in the works of Freud, Foucault or Derrida than in whatever I was writing a paper on. Have you ever had to sit through a lecture where Metamorphosis is examined as an expression of Kafka's homosexuality? Or Werther as Goethe's premature ejaculation? Or Dracula as a primal scene from Stoker's childhood? Or Humbert Humbert's pedophilia being a cover for his homosexuality? I'm fairly convinced that one could get an advanced degree in literature without ever learning what an unreliable narrator is. Maybe this has just been my experience. Still, I think the best cure for a love of literature is getting a degree in it.

----------


## Arrowni

I think that the best critic doesn't stray far from the main literature, like any other genre it needs to be concise and elegant, which many fail to do decently, even when their writings have substance -we only remember critics who managed to say something sensible, the rest are mercifully forgotten, unless they are too recent-. Frankly I'm not sure if I would qualify psychological rants and marxist debates as an actual element of critic, most of the time it seems more like a search for the quintessential philosophy of writing. I'd rather have Montaigne, thanks.

Borges is nothing like that really, he has read an amazing amount of books, but he's much more pragmatic. At times his essays read as if he was writing fiction, like his analysis of Hawthorne.

Personally I enjoy the discussion that has its disagreements without it devolving into a drunken fist fight. Not that fist fights are wrong, is just that we should enjoy delving into the things we enjoy.

I don't think that literature evolves in the sense that it becomes "better", instead it just develops traits. Stream of consciousness is a modern trait that won't make any previous literary form dated. The texts that are still read and analyzed in our era are all survivors from previous generations, they are winners of the evolutionary race. An organism may have changed its traits more often than the other, but since they aren't extinct none of them is more "adapted", until they effectively disappear or dominate completely. By the same token, neither Dante nor Shakespeare nor Tolstoy are more adapted than the other, readers developed tastes that are capable of including all of them disregarding the number of centuries that has passed between all of them. Since Dante and Shakespeare are hardly in the edge of oblivion, I'd say that suggesting one "advance" overcomes the another it's iffy.

(This is also how actual biological evolution happens, and natural selection would come from the readings that are supported by future readers and academics, regarding a certain amount of esthetic rules they chose over the others)

There is my rant  :Tongue:

----------


## stuntpickle

> I think that the best critic doesn't stray far from the main literature, like any other genre it needs to be concise and elegant, which many fail to do decently, even when their writings have substance -we only remember critics who managed to say something sensible, the rest are mercifully forgotten, unless they are too recent-. Frankly I'm not sure if I would qualify psychological rants and marxist debates as an actual element of critic, most of the time it seems more like a search for the quintessential philosophy of writing. I'd rather have Montaigne, thanks.
> 
> Borges is nothing like that really, he has read an amazing amount of books, but he's much more pragmatic. At times his essays read as if he was writing fiction, like his analysis of Hawthorne.
> 
> Personally I enjoy the discussion that has its disagreements without it devolving into a drunken fist fight. Not that fist fights are wrong, is just that we should enjoy delving into the things we enjoy.
> 
> I don't think that literature evolves in the sense that it becomes "better", instead it just develops traits. Stream of consciousness is a modern trait that won't make any previous literary form dated. The texts that are still read and analyzed in our era are all survivors from previous generations, they are winners of the evolutionary race. An organism may have changed its traits more often than the other, but since they aren't extinct none of them is more "adapted", until they effectively disappear or dominate completely. By the same token, neither Dante nor Shakespeare nor Tolstoy are more adapted than the other, readers developed tastes that are capable of including all of them disregarding the number of centuries that has passed between all of them. Since Dante and Shakespeare are hardly in the edge of oblivion, I'd say that suggesting one "advance" overcomes the another it's iffy.
> 
> (This is also how actual biological evolution happens, and natural selection would come from the readings that are supported by future readers and academics, regarding a certain amount of esthetic rules they chose over the others)
> ...


I feel certain that less than half of persons teaching literature at the university level in the US can actually scan a poem. The problem with evolutionary theories of literature and Dawkins's notion of memes is that they confuse what people end up choosing with some variety of fitness. Fit to what? Fit to theory or short attention spans, apparently. Post 1950s literature is written by people in service of theory; the result of this is stuff is the impenetrability of so-called language poets, whom only academics will ever read. On the other end of the spectrum, the greatest literary events of our lifetime will probably end up involving books for children. Twilight and Harry Potter, both of them being largely read by adults.

You refer to "certain aesthetic rules," which would imply that prevailing theories vaguely concern aesthetics, when the truth is that most theories concern peripheral fields and social issues. I mean there's obviously a problem when the most sane theory (pragmatism) implies every other theory is not just wrong, but nonsensical. Once upon a time, a person putting pen to paper was fairly familiar with various precise rhetorical figurations and possessed an adequate facility with them. Now, virtually no one knows what polysyndeton or analacouthon is at all. Is literature fitter because of this?

The problem is that you enter a feedback loop based on either commercial viability or academic inscrutability, both of which work to ensure that everyone loses the capacity to distinguish any aesthetic attributes because they are irrelevant to Marxism or being a best seller. My most startling realization occurred when I joined an extra-curricular reading/study group and discovered that someone who was fairly conversant in post-colonial mumbo jumbo didn't even recognize a narrator was unreliable and liked stories simply based on whether the protagonist reminded her of herself.

If your evolutionary theory is at all reliable, literature will soon be replaced by videos of falling grandmas and hypertext novels written upside down.

----------


## JCamilo

Borges is an excellent critic. Quite better than Eliot, because, put frankly, Borges capacity of interpretation and to find something new on old works is much superior than the capacity of Eliot. No wonder, many of the "professional critics", carry Borges under their arm. And it is hilarious to think he is anything but very competent to talk about the romantic poets. Any know of his love towards Blake, that he was fascinated by Ode to a Nightingale (the poem that taught him what poetry is), Coleridge Kubla Khan and literary biographia, Byron poetry and, albeit this is veiled, he liked Wordsworth a lot. Only reggarding Shelley I have seen him without some enthusiams. Yet, he, as people who study french litterature deeply consider Hugo first and foremost a poet. And a great one. (Borges would deliver similar attacks on Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Shakespeare, Milton, Poe, meaning, poets he liked to read and knew well. And Borges approach is always aesthetical). 

But anyways, the point is How utter ridiculous are arguments as "any critic who disagree with me does not deserve to be named a critic." It is laughable. 

Wordsworth inovation is what? Writing about a cottage???? That is nice. So, when Pope wrote about hair, he must have changed all world! Modern Confessional poetry owes to him (as if he was the first who did something similar) ? But Modern Confessional poetry is hardly the most representative bulk of moderm poetry. Yeats alone (Who own much to romantics indeed) is more relevant than the moderm confessional poetry. But it says nothing to Neruda, Pessoa, Lorca, or other heavy heights of modernism which own much more to Baudelaire, Verlaine and Rimbaud? That is the best you can give about Woodsworth? Ad we are not even talking about a nobody! It should be quite easy to point really the merits of Woody man... But instead you try to "show-off" mentioning Aristoteles (of course I saw it was a pointless, I know classic theory of drama, as it said nothing to your argument at all, but you seem to really have a problem to get irony). And yet, you try harder, and the first romantics are going to be german, they are those spreading to russia, france and england itself, because this guy Schiller is the one that came up with the romantic aesthetic and it is not wonder almost all mentions him over and over. This when they are not dealing with french politics, but since this is more less aesthetic, lets put this apart, right?




> Okay, before you offer more hand-waving, you need to understand that what you are doing fails to examine anything remotely aesthetic, which is the entire problem. Who read who, doesn't deal with the artifact, itself--the text. I never said "neo classicism is backwards," so stop putting words into my mouth. The word "revert" has none of the pejorative connotations of "backwards." Neo-classicism is explicitly a return to something that happened previously; that's not an insult, but a definition. To suggest something neoclassical is somehow as original as something entirely new is irrational--by definition. Your point that Spencer and Chaucer wrote before Shakespeare is moot. Are we even having the same discussion here?


I find this priceless. First, you are the english talker. You should know that backward means moving back to the past. The negative is your mind. So, you claim the neo-classic (I suppose the name gave you a clue) is a backward movement of the past, as if there is no creation on the entire movement. It is a cute old dated critic. Typical non-sense but very romantic indeed. And Coleridge and Wordsworth loved it because it was a way to release the limitations of neo-classic style on english poetry. But one step foward, and Byron would be all for neo-classicism and Keats would be praising Champman and Homer, etc. 
But this would lead to two ridiculous idea, Neo-classicism was a return to the past, as If Dante or Ariosto, or Voltaire or Racine, are just copying the model and waiting Milton to free them or that Romantics are such rupture that all about them was original. (This from a guy who come quoting Ariostoteles). 

The idea is ridiculous. Not only romantics have as much of the past as neo-classics, as neo-classics are as a rupture as romantics. You seem to not graps it well, it is neo-classicism that break with middle age. It is an entire new man, organizaiton, philosophy that was born. They play with the models of the past? Of course, just like any great artist, they modify those models to their needs. Just like the romantics hardly forgot the classics (enough references to them in all their poetry), didnt recovered the celtic past (albeit, it was first with Mcpherson), dealt with biblical themes (like Blake did, not to mention Swenderborg), oriental exotism (plenty of 1001 nights references), Milton and Shakespeare (albeit your early crazy contemporary line), Dante himself, and the list go on. It would be quite hard for a movement that is often looking back ot the past, to break with this past completely. Wake up, as Adorno pointed: Romanticism is just a development of the enlightment. 




> Listen, that model of character isn't mine, but Aristotle's, you know, the guy who started the whole aesthetic theory thing. Take it up with him. Don Quixote the character is hardly the equal of Hamlet. Quixote is hardly the equal of Anna Karenina. There's a reason the largely episodic work of Don Quixote is only praised as the quintessential novel by persons who have staked their careers on it. Moliere is mostly an historic example of Enlightenment thinking in drama, aesthetically he's just not that important. Of course, you could always demonstrate how that is wrong, rather than pretending to divine the opinions of a dead man who lived centuries before Cervantes or Moliere--if he even lived at all.


Really? Are you joking? Lets remember that Wordsworth himself placed Quixote references in his Prelude. Not of... Oh, I forgot, he is original, he didnt read as a kid. 
You are really making a big effort to be clumsy? Moliere is not just historical, his aesthetic merit is widely reckonized. Because lets put simply: he was more funny than Shakespeare. (And what is the dead man thing? Are you lost?)




> There's is absolutely nothing in history before Shakespeare demonstrating as robust a character as Hamlet--nothing that suggests the intricacy of intellect and humor, which is to say nothing as convincingly human. To mention the cartoon of Don Quixote, who does little more than get bopped on the head through an endless string of episodes, as approaching Hamlet's complexity is just--I don't know--unconscionable.


This is what a kid would say. Don Quixote just a dude that is bopped in the head (it is when you should say: sorry, I forgot my pantalones in the bathtub or something else, because it makes no sense) and then the funny part that people have read for 2500 years or so, but all characters looked less human to them, which imply the writers that Shakespeare copied are so clumsy that they are unable to represent humanity. Of course, this is when we laugh together. But I will be reading a book with Hamlet.




> One is obviously more multi-dimensional than the other. The fact that you think the word "Divine" is any kind of stumbling block for anyone or anything, makes me think you completely misunderstand its use. Whoever smashed Dante and Shakespeare doesn't matter. Are you even slightly aware of how to judge a work aesthetically? I only ask because you haven't yet demonstrated it, and when I actually did you basically insulted Aristotle's aesthetic theory.


No, you have not showed any capacity to judge any work aesthatically, You have been shouting names. Your clumsy quoting of Aristoteles (get a clue, Aristoteles is reasonable accessible, it does not impress anyone) didnt showed anything. Even because your online description of protagonist is not relevant, can be just applied to dramas without you raising the aesthetical quality of the work, can be applied to Hamlet, albeit Shakespeare is inovative enough to break classical drama traditions. And If you think it is offensive, saying that your line applies to Hamlet (which it does), good for you. Aristoteles won't mind at all. 

As your argument, it is the kind of argument kids have. "Hey, who will won, Wolverine or Batman?". Of course, if DC publiishes, Batman win, if Marvel, Wolverine steals batmobile. It is not a show of aesthetical judgment, knowledge or anything. It is fanboyism. One could point that Hamlet, outside his play, is nobody. Without Shakespeare voice, he would be mute, perhaps waiting Godot. If you to write fanfiction go ahead, but before coming with the pretencious idea of your almighty aesthetical capacity of judgment, do not build such ridiculous arguments. 




> I'm saying Shakespeare made Dante look dated. Despite Dante's innovation, his work seems to hew more closely to an explicitly classical tradition of epic poets, whereas Shakespeare seems thoroughly original, despite having influences. There's a reason Shakespeare's characters are used even today and Dante's are not. Dante's characters simply aren't intellectually sufficient to pass muster with a modern audience. They're about as complex as Odysseus. To rewrite a Dante type character would seem like archaism today. Hamlet is still clever as ever.


Odysseus is one of the characters of Dante, but you probally didnt paid attention did you? Again, your argumentantion seems silly. First, Dante still used to today. He is a model to Eliot, Borges and suprise... Even X-Men! So, what would happen if Hamlet meets Wolverine?
Second, both Shakespeare and Dante excells in more than just character creation, and the simple fact that you do not read latim anymore, would tell you Dante lasting influence is quite bigger than you think. The very notion of how hell or heaven is belong to the Comedy. Of course, nobody can (albeit they try) bring Dante-Virgil pair, it would look ridiculous, because it was a one shot thing. Bring simple the greatest poet ever and pretend he is our equal while you have done something equal to him yet... And Dante managed it out. And surprise, who even placed himself as Dante placed as in the narrative before? Oh, you mean, the samething Borges did in XX century with himself???? 

Now, I wont say you have not touched the "artifact", but this is not reading. Better read more. 




> I never said Vita Nuova was printed inside the Commedia. I meant that it is generally read as an introduction to Dante and Beatrice. If all Dante had written was Vita Nuova, we might not even know who he was. If all Shakespeare had written was Hamlet, we would still know him. If all he had written was King Lear, we would still know him. I daresay if all he had written was Macbeth, we would still know him. I never said I stopped at Inferno; again, stop putting words in my mouth to make yourself feel better. I said that Paradiso was an aesthetic disaster in comparison to Inferno and even explained why. In case you don't know, that's essentially what you have to when examining a particular work: pick a particular section and examine it in the particular.


But you seem unable to do it. Because you cannt even read what that particular phrase "And bad readers stop on Inferno." does not makes reference to you. If you cannt understand a simple phrase like this (do not blame my english, Bad readers is not a mispelling of stuntpickle) what good you will do analysing anything more complex like Dante, Shakespeare or Cervantes (some of commentaries suggest that no good, but I am more than willingly that you are trying to be sarcastic or just, as you said, too passsionate)?
And you know, this is another kid idea. I love Star Trek and they could defeat Star Wars. But they have Jedis. But if you remove Jedis, then Star Trek would won. Dante was already famous before the Comedy, he would be remembered, but of course, if Shakespeare had written only Pericles, who would remember him? 




> Satan is part of the landscape of hell, and as far as character goes, he might as well be a rock. Dante, the character, says any number of things explicitly all throughout the Commedia, which I presume you have read.


You should be carefull and read yourself. Satan is part of the scenary (Hell) or really a character? You know, if you see woods moving, it is because they are not woods. (You know, someone who know how to analyse works, do not demands to its elements to act out of the pressumed function. Is Satan ever suppose to pop out, give us a monologue and invite Dante to a drink? Or he is doing exactly the fuction pressume in Dante's work?)

And Yes, I read. And still, Dante explicitly in the Comedy is something funny, considering he explicitly said he didnt write poetry as such. You know, Dante, the one who loved medieval alegories, that wrote a treatise on the inner obscure meanings of the texts (his own texts by the way) writing things explicitly (which ,as you know since you speak english since birth, expressing without vagueness)? Another thing good when you analyse works is not claiming, I asked you where he claims explicitly he cannt describe good and this should imply that he offers us very little at the end. (The use of alegory is of course a clue, if you really want to go after aesthetics of medieval age, not Aristotele).




> I think it's fairly obvious that Yahweh is the archetype for Shakspeare's Lear--a figure terrible in his power, who relinquishes his power to his children who then promptly forsake him. You say Dante had no intention of describing God, but then showing up at his house seems a little ridiculous. The equivalent is like Stoker's Dracula being invisible throughout the entire novel. Muse, muse, muse, you act like having a muse is something more than pedestrian by Dante's time. Muses were fairly stock items insofar as epic poems were concerned. There's hardly anything original in Dante having one. That's just Dante strictly writing in the epic mode. If you think Dante having a muse is some critical marvel, then you are obviously bereft of the necessary tools to aesthetically judge anything. That a muse is so central to Dante's work indicts it, rather than praises it.


The problem is quite simple, When does Yaweh is a forsaken god? Of course, Bloom nails right, the Jewish's relation with God after the jews without kingdom and he is latter without temple, the jews without kingdom and there is a short of "revision" and change of relation between jews and god. But that is Jewish text and culture and Shakespeare had considerable other sources from irish/celtic culture closer than show the same type of King (the lost, mad abandoned King) which are much closer to King Lear. Of course, they are all similar, just like Ulysses is similar to Simbad, Achilles to Sigriefid, etc. Bloom can make this reading, Shakespeare, complete out of jewish culture and their abandon didnt. 

You think it is ridiculous Dante showing up to his house? So, Mister thinks one of the most praised works of all time, the trip of a man from hell to heaven, is ridiculous? Put the head to rest and think: Am I wrong or 700 years of culture that have been impacted by this ridiculous idea?

And of course, God is not visible. (Godot arrives? Moby Dick is a show off? and Ahab?) The work is not about showing God, but a little bit of knowledge of middle age aesthetic and metaphysics easily answer this one (This also answers the process that turned Jesus in a divine being). 

Having a Muse is quite important, a feature of epic poetry. But the process of creation of Beatrice (which influence is notable, after all Dante is not the only one who tries to create a muse and she became the model, just like Shakespeare made models, after all many of his characters, Romeo, Juliet, Hamlet, Lear, etc are not just stock models, but already present in early works) is unique. And she does mean more than a line in the text. If you think, Beatrice equates Callyope, then sorry, you have to read more books.




> I never said there wasn't a book in Hamlet. I said that saying "Hamlet reads a book before he sees a ghost" makes me think you've never read the play. It would be like me saying Dante goes to heaven before he meets Virgil. The book has nothing to do with the ghost, and you have the chronology all wrong--mistakes that seem likely only if the person making them has never read the play.


That is funny as hell. You think I never read a play because when I mention that Shakespeare didnt bothered (and I should not judge it as failure, because it is a play) to fill descriptions of scenary, etc. I mention the irrelevance of it by mentioning of his few descriptions (and obscure line, I think in second act) and you are arrogant enough to read "You diddnt read a play, because the chronology is wrong"? Dro you think I bothered with chronology? Do you think someone who have not read hamlet remembers that one of the few details described is him holding a book? Not that I quote Shakespeare back and forth, or any poem for what matters, but I find this detail funny. Make me think of Quixote, of course, the guy which your absurdly equated with 3 stooges. Get yourself a hold dude. 




> Don't pretend to insult my reading, especially when you can't even get Hamlet anywhere close to right.


I am not insulting your reading, but I will. Unless you quote where I claimed '"scenery is somehow an inherent property n of poetry", proving I am wrong and you actually can read.




> Apparently, you have no idea what a rhetorical figuration is. I'm beginning to think, more and more, that you simply don't have the tools to critically analyse anything.


You didnt said a single word about "rhetorical figuration", You used both imagery and figuration. So, I am starting to imagine you not only have problems reading others, but yourself. You have the arrogance to repeat it over and over and give the most infantile question about God representation in Dante. Any kid now what the main aesthetic purpose of alegory is, any would know the answer quite easily. You get how lost you are? 

Trying to judge a work, because in a different work, elements used with different purpose, would not fit in this specific work is not comparite literature, dude. It is fanboyism.

Let's make a aesthetical Analyse: Who would win a fight? Romeo or Harry Potter. This is the kind of "analyse" you have been suppling us. If we have hamlet written by Rowling, how well would his monologues go?  :Biggrin:

----------


## stuntpickle

Listen, J, the discussion is at this point ridiculous. I had to spend two or three posts explaining how you had completely misread what I meant about British imperialism with you basically repeating my own argument back to me over and over. You completely misunderstand what I said about Aristotle, as you seem to think it had something to do with Wordsworth. I never said Wordsworth was great because he wrote about a cottage, and, frankly, I just don't know if your inability to understand this has to do with your English or some other more fundamental problem. There simply isn't any point in discussing the merits of Dante or Shakespeare with someone who keeps reiterating that "Dante had the bestest muse!" or that "it's called the DIVINE Comedy for a reason!"--which has to be, by the way, the lamest defense of Dante ever. If you can't understand why saying "Hamlet reads a book before he sees a ghost" makes me think you might not have read the play, then discussing Hamlet or anything else with you will largely be fruitless. If you can't understand that saying something is "backwards" is hardly the same thing as saying something constitutes a return, then perhaps we face complications of language we cannot overcome.

Were I to properly respond to your post it would look like this:

That's not what I said.
That's not what I said.
That's not what I said.
That's not what I said.
That's not what I said.

I can't tell if you're purposely making straw man arguments or are simply incapable of deducing my meaning. In either case, I no longer care. So whatever......

Whenever you see yet another reproduction of Shakespeare or an award winning novelization of his plays, just keep telling yourself "it's called the DIVINE Comedey for a reason" and "Dante was in a comic book."

I hope it helps you sleep better.

----------


## Arrowni

> I feel certain that less than half of persons teaching literature at the university level in the US can actually scan a poem. The problem with evolutionary theories of literature and Dawkins's notion of memes is that they confuse what people end up choosing with some variety of fitness.


Luckily we aren't teachers and we actually try to understand the facts, that's why this discussion won't hit the wall by some misunderstanding  :Smile: 

We agree that the concept is confusing, but it's essentially true, which should be enough for us to consider it teaching it or using it as basis for a discussion. I don't know this Dawkins man, but if what I heard is correct, he doesn't even understand himself nor his theories, his personal interpretation of surviving traits seems actually distorting and juvenile.




> Fit to what? Fit to theory or short attention spans, apparently. Post 1950s literature is written by people in service of theory; the result of this is stuff is the impenetrability of so-called language poets, whom only academics will ever read. On the other end of the spectrum, the greatest literary events of our lifetime will probably end up involving books for children. Twilight and Harry Potter, both of them being largely read by adults.


Yet certain ascending countries have managed to find their success among less complex audiences, Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Cortazar are hardly impenetrable, some critics may even rise the question of the actual dept of their works. Literature has always been a marginal way of approaching a text, not to the point that it only exists in schools, but never it has been a truly popular phenomena. Purely distracting texts will always exists, as there will always be people who won't like true literature even if they like reading.

I'd assume that the point is specially hot if we are to discuss poetry, but it's a point that I cannot really discuss from the time being. People who actually love poetry tend to detach it from the circle of excessive analysis using social tools, they look at the language more often. That's why poets tend to be more prized for their sensibility.




> You refer to "certain aesthetic rules," which would imply that prevailing theories vaguely concern aesthetics, when the truth is that most theories concern peripheral fields and social issues.



Realism and psychology work in the exact same way than most aesthetic rules do, only from beyond the text they can pretend to be any more concise or relevant than any internal analysis, this is part of what they do wrong.

The second reason would be that they use the wrong tools and the third that they use it for the wrong reasons. People want to marry critical thought with limited speech exercises such as ethnology and sociology, in critical thought is beyond such notions, and its part of what limits current critics which are very bad at text analysis. They fail at understand the most basic mechanics of speech: by making the text stir from somewhere other than itself they are limiting the text instead of making it bigger. They try to be scientific which is an entire misunderstanding of what art is about.

I don't even think such academics could deserve to be called critics, they are just theorists and teachers.




> The problem is that you enter a feedback loop based on either commercial viability or academic inscrutability, both of which work to ensure that everyone loses the capacity to distinguish any aesthetic attributes because they are irrelevant to Marxism or being a best seller. My most startling realization occurred when I joined an extra-curricular reading/study group and discovered that someone who was fairly conversant in post-colonial mumbo jumbo didn't even recognize a narrator was unreliable and liked stories simply based on whether the protagonist reminded her of herself.


There is a way beyond those two mismatches, which in my opinion is self evident: actual readers. Literature is the art of reading much more than actual writing. That's exactly what I meant when I said Borges was a great reader -not the fair amount of books he read, but the conviction he had in how reading and finding new interpretations of text nourished literature, Borges metaphysical thought, if there is any, circles entirely this notion of a writer-, and it's also the lament that Derrida expressed at his death when he said about ten people could actually _read_ him.

Being an academic doesn't make you a good reader, it doesn't translate into genuine conviction and ability to see through texts by evaluating their objective strengths. I cannot possibly think of jumping into a text from the Victorian Age and hope to absorb it entirely without trying to understand the victorian man. Post-modernists fell short because when they uncovered that past speeches weren't enough, they assumed that their new shinny tools would be enough. You just don't sit on your tools, you develop new ways of reading and revitalize old ones. A post-colonial critic that can only see through post-colonial shades didn't learn the lesson from colonialist, he's a future fatality waiting to happen.





> If your evolutionary theory is at all reliable, literature will soon be replaced by videos of falling grandmas and hypertext novels written upside down.



Everything comes down to what fitness really means, the truth is that the precise definition eludes us, but the evidence that literature _is still here_ and that people like Bolaño can still pull a decent enough book, should suffice for us to adhere to its functionality. There are not less great critics endowed with knowledge in metric only because we're going collectively stupid, is that some people who are fit to employ that skill are also busy developing other ways of reading. The proof for evolution is variety: more ways of reading, more people able to develop new ways of reading. Any limited view, academic or popular, will just be in the way of getting things right.

This is also why, despite our discussion about who is the very best poet of all time, we don't encourage people becoming Shakespeare or Dante. The lack of similarities in what we enjoy and absorb is proof that we are good enough readers to pass on that knowledge and than enjoyment to others. Literati will always be a minority, but ideally we should be several minorities.

That's why I like to see intelligent people that disagree with me.

----------


## JCamilo

> Listen, J, the discussion is at this point ridiculous. I had to spend two or three posts explaining how you had completely misread what I meant about British imperialism with you basically repeating my own argument back to me over and over.


Everyone understood what you meant, you did not had to explain anything. What you do not understood is how Alexander pointed to you you seem to be trolling, not only because the blabla fathers, but because you had to claim something as obnoxious as the english language because of imperialism, something which, hellooooooo, everyone in this forum know. And like I pointed, your discuss lacked incoherence, why it had to mentioned if you were not worried with patriotism or anything. Nobody misunderstood you, you that has a inherent flaw on argumentation.




> You completely misunderstand what I said about Aristotle, as you seem to think it had something to do with Wordsworth.


As this. Can you read? 
"albeit Hamlet is a high-born person of generally good character which critical flaws lead to his downfall, your simple idea is already a laughable paradoy." That is my reply about your aristotle. How does it leads to Wordsworth? Really? And there is nothing to misinterpret, nobody needs a be a genious, bright, to read much to understand what your one line about Aristotle meant. Get over it: people do not argue with you because what you say is special, bright, or obscure. 





> I never said Wordsworth was great because he wrote about a cottage, and, frankly, I just don't know if your inability to understand this has to do with your English or some other more fundamental problem.


Your english is worst than mine. I do not even try, but I do know the meaning of words which you seems to have missed. You did reply when Stlukes asked about romantic beakdrown: I think the Romantics instigated an inward turn in that Wordsworth could happen upon a cottage, have little more than his thoughts and still have a poem. 
And I mock again, this is the best you can come? To explain how romantics have caused such break? Some non sense about a cottage? You can do better than this, or you will ask how Hamlet would go in a Wordsworth poem?




> There simply isn't any point in discussing the merits of Dante or Shakespeare with someone who keeps reiterating that "Dante had the bestest muse!" or that "it's called the DIVINE Comedy for a reason!"


Dude, I never called he had the best muse. But the process of creation of Beatrice as muse is unique, a merit reckonized by any half it that does not consider the merits of different works will resume with comical scenarios like "Can you see Hamlet in the iliad? He would own it". Sorry, but I wish you to find a single critical work whose merit is the creation of What If wacko scenarios worth of Sci-fic fan meetings to analyse the works. You are reproved, with big 0 because it is not a matter of english or not, it is matter of proposing a ridiculous argument then boasting about how others cann't analyse a work by aesthetic merits. Batman meets Hamlet. Batman punches Hamlet. Hamlet is gone. 




> --which has to be, by the way, the lamest defense of Dante ever. If you can't understand why saying "Hamlet reads a book before he sees a ghost" makes me think you might not have read the play, then discussing Hamlet or anything else with you will largely be fruitless.


Really? You cannt grasp simple irony and loves Hamlet. Oh, the irony. 
I am not discussing who reads more or not, I would not even need to have read Hamlet, but your argument is that I could not have read hamlet? This is how he would owns Iliad???




> If you can't understand that saying something is "backwards" is hardly the same thing as saying something constitutes a return, then perhaps we face complications of language we cannot overcome.


No, according the Merriam Webster dictionary for english users, one of the meanings of backwards is "b : toward the past or the part behind or past ". Of course, you have a complication with the language. You do not know it. (I do not need to explain, that past is a place we have been, so going towards the past is obviously a return.". I suggest you to learn english. It is not just reading, it is understanding. That is why you have such problem with Dante to the point to ask where is God (albeit you insist to see Satan in the hellish landscape and cannt grasp God is the Comedy's landscape, such failure of reasoning and understandment of medieval aesthetic, but to do this, you would need to leave english behind...)




> Were I to properly respond to your post it would look like this:
> 
> That's not what I said.
> That's not what I said.
> That's not what I said.
> That's not what I said.
> That's not what I said.


No, lets refresh: I had to reply it because you claimed you said something, and when we looked, you didnt. Remember, Retheorical figuration.




> I can't tell if you're purposely making straw man arguments or are simply incapable of deducing my meaning. In either case, I no longer care. So whatever......


Straw man argument: "Don't insult my reading capacity, I never said I stopped at Inferno" coming from "Bad readers stop at Inferno" ? 
Or "You are saying descriptions are the basis of poetry" coming from "The scenary and narrative description? Of course, superior to all Shakespeare did."? Sure...





> Whenever you see yet another reproduction of Shakespeare or an award winning novelization of his plays, just keep telling yourself "it's called the DIVINE Comedey for a reason" and "Dante was in a comic book."
> 
> I hope it helps you sleep better.



No, but everytime some claim a falsehood like the Comedy can not entertain a modern audience or that his characters are not re-writen, I can say: False. Even pop stuff like comic books did it. And end with such clueless absurd argument that ignores a short story like Aleph is a re-writing of The Divine Comedy. Go and read a book. (The extra irony of the Nabokov joke is that this guy claimed to have a telepatic link with Borges, so similar some of their ideas were. But I do not suppose someone who does not go beyond Harold Bloom would know it).

----------


## B. Laumness

> Are we talking about Victor Hugo? If we are, I will admit to having read a fair portion of his work. My understanding, however, is that his fiction is better than his poetry. I haven't read that much of his poetry, as what I did read seemed not particularly special. But then again, his novels didn't greatly impress me either. I am, however, willing to revise my opinion. If you will select what you think is his best poem, I will certainly read it. To be honest, I am not impressed by comparisons to Goethe.


In the 19th century, Hugo was admired mostly for his poetry. His poetic works are less read nowadays in France, not because they are become mediocre or archaic, but because there are less and less readers for poetry, and that Hugos is probably too abundant, not contained in a single volume, so that the potential readers do not know where to start. Nevertheless, some of his poems are well known and taught in high school and at the university, where I never studied his novels (which are impressive, at least _Les Misérables_ and _Notre-Dame de Paris_), but always his poems. I also had a great interest in his plays, which are probably not as immortal as Shakespeare ones, but are still very good. The comparison with Goethe seems to me valid. But unless you read a poem in the original text, it is hard to fully appreciate it.

Here are two quotes about Hugo: the first is by a French critic, Claude Roy, in 1974; the second by Paul Valéry (the excerpts are translated by myself). You can read also what Baudelaire wrote in his _Réflexions sur quelques-uns de mes contemporains_ (available in English in_ Baudelaire as a literary critic_):




> It is surprising that no critic has yet noticed what is blindingly obvious: Victor Hugo cannot be the author of Victor Hugos works. The scholars have already raised many other problems about the identity of the great men. As it is unlikely that a poor actor of Stratford-upon-Avon had about politics, history, passions, and philosophy, lights that blaze in William Shakespeares works, it has been irrefutably showed that those works had for authors more commendable persons: Francis Bacon, the Earl of Derby, and five or six other pretenders. As it was impossible that a poor shepherdess from Domrémy was in the same time a politician, a mystic, and a lord of war, it has been showed that Joan was not Joan, but an illegitimate child of the king and a princess of the blood. But we still wait for a scientific solution to the more disturbing problem of the identity of Hugo. Anyone with common sense will not believe that an ordinary man could have been what Victor Hugo was, namely the greatest poet _and_ one of the best draftsmen of his century, a politician _and_ a Don Juan, a philosopher _and_ a businessman, the most important playwright _and_ the most popular novelist amongst those who were not serial writers, an inventor of religion _and_ the guru of his era. The most likely hypothesis is actually that the called Victor Hugo is an impostor who covered by his fake identity a literary and graphic studio made up of brilliant hoaxers; that he just signed drawings performed by Delacroix, Turner, and Corot (when he was secretly chewing hashish); that he shoulders poems that a group consisting of Lamartine, William Blake, Vigny, Byron and Baudelaire wrote during inspired evenings; that he gave his visiting card to about fifteen libertines who impersonated him in the bed and in the heart of Adèle, Juliette, Léonie Biard, Esther Grimont, Alice Ozy, Thérèse, Marie, Sarah Bernhardt, Judith Gautier, and one thousand and one unknown women; that his speeches and his political texts have been written by a committee that brought together all the representatives of the republican left; and that, at last, the body that rests at the Pantheon prolongs in the fallacious immortality of the marble an unprecedented hoax.





> Never in our language the power to tell everything in exact verses was possessed and practiced at that extent. To excess, perhaps. Hugo is sort of too strong not to abuse power. He transforms anything he wants into poetry. He finds in the use of the poetic form the way to convey a strange life to every thing. There is no inanimate object for him. There is no abstraction that he cannot make speak, sing, complain, or threaten. And though, there is with him no verse that is not a verse. No mistake in the form. Indeed, with him, the form is quite masterful. The act that makes the form entirely dominates within him. That supreme form is somehow stronger than him: he is like the possessed of the poetic language. What is called Thought becomes within him, by a strange and enlightening reversal of function, the means and not the end of the expression. The development of a poem often seems the deduction of a wonderful accident of language that appeared in his mind.


Its almost impossible to say what his best poem is. My favorite are Clair de lune, Demain dès laube, Melancholia, and many other texts of _Les Contemplations_. There are excellent passages in_ Les Châtiments_, _La Légende des siècles_ or elsewhere. Here are three famous stanzas of the long poem called Fonction du poète:




> Peuples ! écoutez le poète !
> Écoutez le rêveur sacré !
> Dans votre nuit, sans lui complète,
> Lui seul a le front éclairé.
> Des temps futurs perçant les ombres,
> Lui seul distingue en leurs flancs sombres
> Le germe qui nest pas éclos.
> Homme, il est doux comme une femme.
> Dieu parle à voix basse à son âme
> ...

----------


## stuntpickle

> Everyone understood what you meant, you did not had to explain anything. What you do not understood is how Alexander pointed to you you seem to be trolling, not only because the blabla fathers, but because you had to claim something as obnoxious as the english language because of imperialism, something which, hellooooooo, everyone in this forum know. And like I pointed, your discuss lacked incoherence, why it had to mentioned if you were not worried with patriotism or anything. Nobody misunderstood you, you that has a inherent flaw on argumentation.


Apparently you did misunderstand and still do. All you ever did was tell me I was wrong and then summarize exactly what I said as a correction. If you can't understand that, then your grasp of the language is insufficient to engage in a conversation. 




> And like I pointed, your discuss lacked incoherence.


Like you pointed? My discuss?  Lacked incoherence? Dude, what are you even trying to say? To think later in your post you talk about irony.






> As this. Can you read? 
> "albeit Hamlet is a high-born person of generally good character which critical flaws lead to his downfall, your simple idea is already a laughable paradoy." That is my reply about your aristotle. How does it leads to Wordsworth? Really? And there is nothing to misinterpret, nobody needs a be a genious, bright, to read much to understand what your one line about Aristotle meant. Get over it: people do not argue with you because what you say is special, bright, or obscure. "


As this? Can YOU read? 




> quite easy to point really the merits of Woody man... But instead you try to "show-off" mentioning Aristoteles


Those are your words, ridiculous instance of "Woody" included. Stop pretending that you don't even know what you said. If you think I tried to "show off" with Aristotle in any connection with "Woody," then you need to try again. If you think I was "showing off" at all with Aristotle, you need to try again. IF you think discussing Aristotle's ideas about antique tragic characters is somehow unrelated to discussing classical character, then you don't know what you're talking about.





> Your english is worst than mine.


That's a good one. Do it again, please.





> I do not even try, but I do know the meaning of words which you seems to have missed. You did reply when Stlukes asked about romantic beakdrown:


A breakdrown? I didn't even mention a breakdown? Sounds like you, again, have no clue what you're talking about.




> I think the Romantics instigated an inward turn in that Wordsworth could happen upon a cottage, have little more than his thoughts and still have a poem. 
> And I mock again, this is the best you can come? To explain how romantics have caused such break? Some non sense about a cottage? You can do better than this, or you will ask how Hamlet would go in a Wordsworth poem?


You know, I would try to explain it with the word "introspection," but then your translator might explode.






> Dude, I never called he had the best muse.


Hey J, Dante "called" and told me you were a liar.




> Or the ultimate muse of all literature, a certain Beatrice? .






> This equate to making the ideal of perfect muse, .






> Dante do what Shakespeare never could: he creates a Muse. .


You know, I hear the reason Nabokov changed the title of his memoir from Speak, Mnemosyne to Speak, Memory was that he didnt want to embarrass Shakespeare. 




> But the process of creation of Beatrice as muse is unique, a merit reckonized by any half it that does not consider the merits of different works will resume with comical scenarios like "Can you see Hamlet in the iliad? He would own it". Sorry, but I wish you to find a single critical work whose merit is the creation of What If wacko scenarios worth of Sci-fic fan meetings to analyse the works. You are reproved, with big 0 because it is not a matter of english or not, it is matter of proposing a ridiculous argument then boasting about how others cann't analyse a work by aesthetic merits. Batman meets Hamlet. Batman punches Hamlet. Hamlet is gone.


Dude, if you cant figure out how asking you to place a character into the context of another so as to demonstrate lack of comparable complexity is, itself, a figuration, I cant help you. Besides, if Hamlet showed up in Dantes work it wouldnt look like Gotham city, but rather the yellow brick road. After all, isnt Dante off to see the wizard?






> Really? You cannt grasp simple irony and loves Hamlet. Oh, the irony. 
> I am not discussing who reads more or not, I would not even need to have read Hamlet, but your argument is that I could not have read hamlet? This is how he would owns Iliad???


If at this point, you are still under the impression it is I who cannot grasp something, then it is a marvelous display of irony. He would owns it? But I didnt even know it was down for sail? That Dante, I here he very high wordsmote.






> No, according the Merriam Webster dictionary for english users, one of the meanings of backwards is "b : toward the past or the part behind or past ". Of course, you have a complication with the language. You do not know it. (I do not need to explain, that past is a place we have been, so going towards the past is obviously a return.".


While youre busy clicking through Websters maybe you should ask your freshman comp teacher what connotation is, and maybe hell also explain to you how anyone who defers to a dictionary or encyclopedia as the definitive arbiter of meaning is probably a nincompoop. Let me just help out here. Those backward hicks is altogether different from those reverted hicks.




> I suggest you to learn english.


Are you thoroughly positive I shouldnt three learn it?




> It is not just reading, it is understanding.


Youre absolutely right, and I have no idea how I could suggest you might have misunderstood Shakespeare.




> That is why you have such problem with Dante to the point to ask where is God (albeit you insist to see Satan in the hellish landscape and cannt grasp God is the Comedy's landscape, such failure of reasoning and understandment of medieval aesthetic, but to do this, you would need to leave english behind...)


Youre right: I have zero understandment of medieval aestheticnot to mention undersitment or overstandology. If you think Dante chose not to depict God because of aesthetics or metaphysics, youre wrong. He simply couldnt figure out how to rationally depict the trinity. Its so obvious, but because Dante constitutes the inner core of your mind, you have to rattle off loads of garbled rationalization.

Oh, and by the way, earlier, when I was still trying to tolerate you, I let the whole our modern conception of Hell owes to Dante thing slide. But now that I dont care, I dont mind mentioning that Dantes gratuitous fetishistic circles are curiously absent, as is the philosopher antechamber and the mute Satan. Your notion that our modern conception of Hell owes to that poem simply betrays the fact that you never read the poem actually responsible for our conceptionyou know, the one where Satan actually talks, and is, in fact, a deceiver, and crashes onto a lake of fire with his compatriots, and is actually regarded as a well fleshed out characterthe one Tennyson based his Ulysses on. You know, THAT one.





> No, lets refresh: I had to reply it because you claimed you said something, and when we looked, you didnt. Remember, Retheorical figuration.


The fact that you think my use of rhetorical figuration is somehow a conspiracy to trip you up is a tad funnyas is the fact that you think rhetorical figuration is somehow mutually exclusive with being an image. You know, BYU has an online resource that might help educate you in that regardmeaning Rhetoric, you know, the other thing that silly Aristotle started. Whats even funnier though is that you never really came up with anything to match the example I provided, as you were too busy trying to convince yourself that Don Quixote and Sancho Panza were somehow the equivalent of Hamlet.






> Straw man argument: "Don't insult my reading capacity, I never said I stopped at Inferno" coming from "Bad readers stop at Inferno" ? 
> Or "You are saying descriptions are the basis of poetry" coming from "The scenary and narrative description? Of course, superior to all Shakespeare did."? Sure...


I now understand that a grasp of tone and implication are beyond your grasp, as directly stating something is difficult for you. And by the way, I never said anything about descriptions are the basis of poetry, but scenery (not being an inherent property), which you brought up as proof of Dantes unlikely superiority.






> No, but everytime some claim a falsehood like the Comedy can not entertain a modern audience or that his characters are not re-writen, I can say: False. Even pop stuff like comic books did it. And end with such clueless absurd argument that ignores a short story like Aleph is a re-writing of The Divine Comedy. Go and read a book. (The extra irony of the Nabokov joke is that this guy claimed to have a telepatic link with Borges, so similar some of their ideas were. But I do not suppose someone who does not go beyond Harold Bloom would know it).


Comic books are exactly where Dantes characters belong. Dude, if you think I dislike Borges as a writer, youre wrong. If you think Vladimir Nabokov would ever agree that Hugo was the poetic equal of the English Romantics, youre wrongregardless of any telepatic teletouchic links. If you are under the impression I think Harold Bloom is vastly important, you are wrong. I agree with Epstein when he says that for someone so concerned with aesthetics, all that reading hasnt done Blooms writing much good.

Try getting back to me when you learn what a rhetorical figure is.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Seeing as JCamilo's third language is English, I think you should cut him some slack. If you seriously can't understand what he meant by "And like I pointed, your discuss lacked incoherence," I don't know what to say. 

And, after reading this lengthy discussion, I've come to one conclusion. Stuntpickle seems to be another of those people who suffers from the "If I don't like it, it's obviously not as good as what I do like" mindset.

Also, the ellipses are just a part of StLuke's style.

----------


## stuntpickle

> In the 19th century, Hugo was admired mostly for his poetry. His poetic works are less read nowadays in France, not because they are become mediocre or archaic, but because there are less and less readers for poetry, and that Hugo’s is probably too abundant, not contained in a single volume, so that the potential readers do not know where to start. Nevertheless, some of his poems are well known and taught in high school and at the university, where I never studied his novels (which are impressive, at least _Les Misérables_ and _Notre-Dame de Paris_), but always his poems. I also had a great interest in his plays, which are probably not as immortal as Shakespeare ones, but are still very good. The comparison with Goethe seems to me valid. But unless you read a poem in the original text, it is hard to fully appreciate it.
> 
> Here are two quotes about Hugo: the first is by a French critic, Claude Roy, in 1974; the second by Paul Valéry (the excerpts are translated by myself). You can read also what Baudelaire wrote in his _Réflexions sur quelques-uns de mes contemporains_ (available in English in_ Baudelaire as a literary critic_):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s almost impossible to say what his best poem is. My favorite are “Clair de lune”, “Demain dès l’aube”, “Melancholia”, and many other texts of _Les Contemplations_. There are excellent passages in_ Les Châtiments_, _La Légende des siècles_ or elsewhere. Here are three famous stanzas of the long poem called “Fonction du poète”:


The content of the stanzas you quoted--the sort of poetic means of achieving the divine--reminds me of a poem by an English Romantic, which I will quote for you. Tell me honestly whether you think they compare.

A damsel with a dulcimer
In a vision once I saw:
It was an Abyssinian maid,
And on her dulcimer she played,
Singing of Mount Abora.
Could I revive within me
Her symphony and song,
To such a deep delight 'twould win me
That with music loud and long
I would build that dome in air,
That sunny dome! those caves of ice!
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware! Beware!
His flashing eyes, his floating hair!
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed
And drunk the milk of Paradise.

Have you ever read Longinus' On the Sublime? The reason I ask is because I am reminded of his comparisons between what he thinks are overwritten, vague examples of exaggerated rhetoric and what he considers to evince more precise and convincing imagery. The whole part from "people listen to the poet" to the end seems precisely what Longinus was talking about. Can you see what I mean?

What about this:

She dwells with Beauty—Beauty that must die; 
And Joy, whose hand is ever at his lips 
Bidding adieu; and aching Pleasure nigh, 
Turning to poison while the bee-mouth sips: 
Ay, in the very temple of Delight 
Veil'd Melancholy has her sovran shrine, 
Though seen of none save him whose strenuous tongue 
Can burst Joy's grape against his palate fine; 
His soul shall taste the sadness of her might, 
And be among her cloudy trophies hung.

I'm not simply trying to argue here; I'm interested in what you think.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Seeing as JCamilo's third language is English, I think you should cut him some slack. If you seriously can't understand what he meant by "And like I pointed, your discuss lacked incoherence," I don't know what to say. 
> 
> And, after reading this lengthy discussion, I've come to one conclusion. Stuntpickle seems to be another of those people who suffers from the "If I don't like it, it's obviously not as good as what I do like" mindset.


Look Mutatis, I appreciate your private message and popping into the middle of my discussions to declare, in mock outrage, that I apologize, but I'm quite sure you understand, like I do, that the "friendly" warning is a tool used by scoundrels the world over. So go ahead and report my post. I simply don't care. And I'll cut J some slack whenever he ends the discussion as I suggested and ceases to have the gall to tell me that "my English is 'worst' than his."

And don't get confused. Your "aw shucks" routine doesn't fool me.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Look Mutatis, I appreciate your private message and popping into the middle of my discussions to declare, in mock outrage, that I apologize, but I'm quite sure you understand, like I do, that the "friendly" warning is a tool used by scoundrels the world over. So go ahead and report my post. I simply don't care. And I'll cut J some slack whenever he ends the discussion as I suggested and ceases to have the gall to tell me that "my English is 'worst' than his."
> 
> And don't get confused. Your "aw shucks" routine doesn't fool me.


**** you too, buddy. Interpret what I say however you like, I really don't give a ****. That I put on an "aw shucks" routine is completely ludicrous, as any member who who pays attention to anything will tell you.

----------


## stuntpickle

> **** you too, buddy. Interpret what I say however you like, I really don't give a ****. That I put on an "aw shucks" routine is completely ludicrous, as any member who who pays attention to anything will tell you.


Oh, I see I had it all wrong!

Your psyche is about an inch thick.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

I'm done responding, I don't want to be the one responsible for getting this thread closed. Thanks for the petty insult, though.

----------


## kinesj

> Which has provided great work? Britain: Shakespeare, Dickens, Doyle, Eliot, Hardy etc. or The United States: Steinbeck, Twain, Melville, Fitzgerald etc. I know many will say British and so would I, but I want to hear your opinions.


 Both countries have produced exceptional novelists, and ultimately this is a subjective matter of taste, such as whether the Bordeaux or the Cabernet is the better wine. In the matter of my own opinion, I would have to say American merely because my favorite writer, William Faulkner, happens to be an American. However, I am not possessed of sufficient hubris to believe that such is an absolute, and there are numerous British authors whose work I adore as well.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Which has provided great work? Britain: Shakespeare, Dickens, Doyle, Eliot, Hardy etc. or The United States: Steinbeck, Twain, Melville, Fitzgerald etc. I know many will say British and so would I, but I want to hear your opinions.


If I had to point to one and actually say that one is better, I'd have to go with British literature, for the sheer reason of history if nothing else. America's voice has only been around for a little over a hundred years or so, so we didn't really get to contribute much until post 1850-or-so; everything up until then is really written with a European voice. Just having Milton alone helps put Britain over the US. Maybe a more fair comparison would be British and American literature post 1850.

----------


## stuntpickle

> I'm done responding, I don't want to be the one responsible for getting this thread closed. Thanks for the petty insult, though.


Petty insult? You land with your cape flapping, so I suggest it's an act. And then you resort to string of explicatives? You have to be kidding. 

How would you describe your reaction?

----------


## JCamilo

M&M let it go, I just noticed something....
Stlukes
Stuntpickle

As our friend musicology would say... no coincidence...

----------


## OrphanPip

The Hugo poem needs a bit of context to be appreciated, it is part of a collection, Rayons et Ombres (rays and shadows), that is structured a bit like Blake's songs of innocence and experience.

This poem is the start of the Light/rays section, and presents us with a sort of optimistic view of the poet, one where the poet is able to help us understand and act as guide, the Star of Bethlehem being the ultimate metaphor from the quoted poem. This contrasts with the later poems in the collection, like Oceano Nox, that are about how the poet can deal with what is unknown, what we are ignorant of. 

As such, the poem is probably better compared in its conception to Shelley's aesthetic view than Coleridge. However, even with the comparison to Coleridge, the poem is quite different. For one, it is structured as a dialogue, the beginning of the poem wasn't quoted, but it contains an argument against the utility of the poet, while the later part of the poem tries to refute that argument and make the claim for the poet as prophet, which will then be elaborated upon in the later poems of the collection.

I'm not much of a Hugo fan though.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> M&M let it go, I just noticed something....
> Stlukes
> Stuntpickle
> 
> As our friend musicology would say... no coincidence...


Oh. My. God. You just _blew my mind._  :FRlol:

----------


## stlukesguild

Borges is an excellent critic. Quite better than Eliot, because, put frankly, Borges capacity of interpretation and to find something new on old works is much superior than the capacity of Eliot. No wonder, many of the "professional critics", carry Borges under their arm. And it is hilarious to think he is anything but very competent to talk about the romantic poets. Any know of his love towards Blake, that he was fascinated by Ode to a Nightingale (the poem that taught him what poetry is), Coleridge Kubla Khan and literary biographia, Byron poetry and, albeit this is veiled, he liked Wordsworth a lot. Only reggarding Shelley I have seen him without some enthusiams. Yet, he, as people who study french litterature deeply consider Hugo first and foremost a poet. And a great one.

Yes... Borges is a giant among critics... and a critic who approaches literature as a lover of reading and not with some political/social agenda unrelated to the subject at hand. As an author he blurs genre: short story, poetry, mystery, science-fiction, history, fiction, criticism. Speaking of himself in his classic collection, _Dreamtigers_, Borges declares, "Few things have happened to me, and I have read a great many. Or rather, few things have happened to me more worth remembering than Schopenhauer's thought or the music of England's words." This is not a critic unfamiliar with English poetry. He profoundly admires Shakespeare. But he also recognizes the brilliance of Cervantes invention of Don Quixote and the _Comedia_. Borges wrote an entire collection of essays on the _Comedia_.

Eliot, in many ways, was the dominant critical voice of Anglo-American Modernism... both as a poet and a critic. It is Eliot who pushes for the recognition of Donne and Marvell and the Metaphysical poets over the Romantics... although he clearly owes much to the Romantics. It is also Eliot... along with Pound... who argue for the aesthetic superiority of Dante over Shakespeare. Joyce argued that he would choose Shakespeare... and undoubtedly I would give Shakespeare's oeuvre the nod over Dante's. But I give the Comedia the nod as the single greatest work of Western literature... something that no single play of Shakespeare can match. I also agree with Borges and Bloom that the characters of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza equals... and probably surpasses any single character of Shakespeare. They are able to live outside the confines of the very narrative in which they were invented in a manner that not even Shakespeare can surpass.

----------


## OrphanPip

> M&M let it go, I just noticed something....
> Stlukes
> Stuntpickle
> 
> As our friend musicology would say... no coincidence...


It's all part of the grand government conspiracy to brain wash us through anonymous internet post into believing that the Earth is actually spherical and not the centre of the universe.

----------


## MarkBastable

Oh dear - what with the name-calling and the snide asides, I fear that this thread is going the same way as the ultimately fractious _In Nomine_ Patch  debate.

----------


## lawpark

Interesting that all heated threads are arguments about canons ...

----------


## JCamilo

Pretty much like football, except of course, the argument is about balls.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Oh dear - what with the name-calling and the snide asides, I fear that this thread is going the same way as the ultimately fractious _In Nomine_ Patch  debate.


Well, at least Mr. Pickle has passed his Paradox Interactive posting number of 9.  :Nod:

----------


## Alexander III

> Pretty much like football, except of course, the argument is about balls.


Actually I thought this thread was more like this




As we can see from the statistics, it is rather irrelevant whose "art" was better - Dante clearly had a bigger _appendage_ than Shakespeare - but Victor Hugo is the undisputed greatest....


No need to thank me, its why I'm here.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Poor South Korea. Japan is quite surprising, though.

----------


## Calidore

> Interesting that all heated threads are arguments about canons ...


Which would make the subjects canon fodder.

----------


## lawpark

Alex ... your source is from ... France, I guess?

----------


## JCamilo

If so, that would be such dick move  :Biggrin:

----------


## WyattGwyon

> Seriously, can you show me a better 20th Century novel than _Lolita_ that isn't _Ulysses_?


Yes. _The Recognitions_ and _JR_ by William Gaddis, _Suttree_ by Cormac McCarthy, to name a few in English. _The Master and Margarita_ by Bulgakov, _Petersburg_ by Bely (Nabokov would agree with this one). If I wanted to get into those that are arguably but not obviously better, the list would be much longer.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Seriously, can you show me a better 20th Century novel than _Lolita_ that isn't _Ulysses_?


I'll follow Wyatt's example and throw some out there that could be possible contenders:

_Great Gatsby, Blood Meridian, Gravity's Rainbow, Slaughter-House Five, To The Lighthouse, As I Lay Dying, Animal Farm, Heart of Darkness, A Clockwork Orange. . . . 
_

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I admit that I'm thoroughly unconcerned with criticism in general. I think Borges is a far better writer than critic, though I will admit that my acquaintance with his criticism has been passing. Citing Borges on the Romantics seems to me like citing Tolstoy on Shakespeare or Nabokov on Dostoevsky. Because I'm particularly impressed by Coleridge and Keats, I'm apt to ignore someone who makes light of the English Romantics.


Which is really just a round-about way of saying, "I'm basing all this on my personal tastes, and pretending it is really an objective argument."

----------


## Arrowni

> Yes. _The Recognitions_ and _JR_ by William Gaddis, _Suttree_ by Cormac McCarthy, to name a few in English. _The Master and Margarita_ by Bulgakov, _Petersburg_ by Bely (Nabokov would agree with this one). If I wanted to get into those that are arguably but not obviously better, the list would be much longer.


I LOVE _The Master and Margarita_.

Off the top of my head I can think about four spanish novels that can compete or surpass _Lolita_, since the 20th century was an excellent age for latin-american novelists.

----------


## John Steinbeck

America because we have Steinbeck.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> America because we have Steinbeck.


Of course, you would vote for yourself!

----------


## John Steinbeck

You can't blame me.

----------


## Desolation

I don't think that I've ever connected with a British writer, honestly. Unless James Joyce counts.

But America has Henry Miller, Jack Kerouac, Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner, F Scott Fitzgerald, Walt Whitman, and Hunter Thompson. So America gets my vote, for now.

I'm a bit undereducated when it comes to both cultures because of my prior focus on the French, and there are plenty of authors from both sides of the pond that I'm anxious to read, like DH Lawrence, Oscar Wilde, Mark Twain, Lawrence Durrell, Thomas Pynchon, Herman Melville, Ralph Ellison, John Steinbeck, Joseph Heller, Joseph Conrad, John Dos Passos, Don DeLillo, Henry James, et al. Much to discover yet.

----------


## lawpark

I came across with this book that talks about "double-narratives" in Indian poetry in the library today: 
http://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Poetry...=26R50W8SS4O2E

Double-narratives means the lines of poetry can tell two stories at the same time. And there are like couple dozens of such works, with half of those narrating both Ramayana and Mahabharata at the same time (i.e. these are long epic poems).

This is amazing ... and it was not only done in Sanksrit, but Telugu / Tamil. And some would write double-narratives but one story reads from left to right while the other story reads from right to left. Truly eye-opening!

Now I'd forget Shakespeare, Dante, Su Shi, Wang Wei, Ferdowsi, Rumi, Kalidasa ... Kaviraja will be my hero!

----------

