American Literature vs British Literature

Mark   Fri May 18, 2007 10:04 am GMT
American Literature has been more vital and produced more first rate writers starting from the mid-nineteenth century to the present. American Literature since then has had a freshness and variety unmatched by old and stale England. An illustration of the decline of England's literary eminence is shown in the fact that the greatest novelist and poet of British Literature of the past 100 years were two Irishmen, Joyce and Yeats.I
Uriel   Sat May 19, 2007 3:48 am GMT
I don't think modern writers of any country are stale and old. The problem is that we generally tend to only call it "literature" if the author's been dead at least fifty years -- by which time their style may indeed seem pretty dated. Personally, I can't stand Mark Twain's novels (his quips are much better) -- but I also found Dickens a chore to get through. I don't think that's a British vs. American thing, I think that's a 19th vs 20th century thing. (They wrote in the 19th century, and I read them during the 20th.)
Bert   Sat May 19, 2007 4:55 am GMT
It's really hard to compare books--every book has its own good and bad points. I think the whole idea of "best" books and "best" authors is insane.
Mark   Mon May 21, 2007 3:43 pm GMT
"You seemed to have missed his point!" - guest

I really haven't I was taken the piss out of the stereotype of Celts and the English hating each other with a passion i.e. making a totally different point altogether.

Having read other posts of "Damian in Edinburgh" on this message board, I almost feel proud to have our Celtic neighbours flanking us. (Almost in that I have a Celtic father who hates the English and this hate is magnified by the media).

As for the post in general, it really is a stupid topic, all writers should be compared individually and not by nation and creed. Themes from books tend to be universal, and if you read books purely on the basis of where they come from probably says something about you.

For instance I try to read as much "English" literature as possible, this may mean that I am quite isolated and narrow minded in my way of thinking, probably as a result of Americas dominant role of today's British media.

PS - still have quite like America and Americans though.
hi   Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:17 am GMT
hello
Travis 2   Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:43 am GMT
I think Adam has a good list of British writers, but I would question his listing of T.S. Eliot as British. He was born in the U.S. It's much like Henry James. Is he a British author or American?
Travis 2   Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:01 am GMT
I think Adam is a bit off in saying that there is no American Culture. Walt Whitman completely reshaped poetry in the U.S. and in Europe. Compare English and American poets of the time to his writing. The difference is palpable. Also, you have to consider the importance American music and film has played on the world stage. You may question that, but the Beatles wouldn't have existed with out American music inspiring them and there would be no film at all without early Hollywood establishing the film industry. All in all, America has produced a massive amount of culture in the last century, but--because it has so infiltrated the rest of the world--people forget its origins. And to go to the direct source, most American culture stems from American minorities and not the European immigrants to the U.S.
Travis 2   Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:24 am GMT
I don't question that British and American writers are among the most prolific in any language. I just wonder what our little brothers and sisters in Canada and Australia have been doing with their time. They haven't more than a handful of decent writers. We should hound them until they produce.
K. T.   Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:32 am GMT
They're probably trying to keep warm and stay PC in Canada. In Australia, they probably catch crocs all day and I reckon that's tiring...just joking.
Damian in London E14   Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:12 am GMT
The regulars on this Forum have long since learned to take a very large pinch of salt with much of what Adam says, but he has every right to say what he says under the heading of Freedom of Speech. Of course there is a distinct American culture, and I guess it's been in existence since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. No doubt Adam will deny that many of the signatories to that document were Scots!

We've discussed T S Eliot before in this forum. He was born an American, in 1888 - at St Louis, MO. He died a British subject in 1965 - he renounced his American citizenship in 1927, and at the same time he was baptised into the Church of England as a member of the Anglo Catholic branch of the C of E.

Henry James was born in New York City in 1843, and in his youth became an inveterate rover - he hated to stay in one place for any length of time, so after doing the rounds in the vastness of his native country, the USA, he hopped over here to Europe and did much the same thing, writing copiously all the while. In 1876 he finally decided to lay down roots, and this he did in England, and had two homes - one in London, and the other in Rye, down on the coast of East Sussex on the south east coast of England. I'm not sure whether he ever took up British citizenship, but his literary works concentrated on English subject matters for some time, but eventually they reflected more of an Anglo American standpoint. He died in 1916, at the height of WW1. He was a major influence on 20th century writing.

Australia has an open air climate - I reckon most Aussies are too busy enjoying barbies to have time being cooped up indoors writing. I can't ever imagine having Christmas dinner on a beach or at a barbie....seems so unnatural somehow.

As for Canadian writers - as a young lad of about 7 or so I had a book written by a Canadian - I forget the author's name but it was all about a Mountie and his dog and all their fantastic adventures in th snowfields of the Canadian outback. Is it called "outback" in Canada, or is that just Australia? Anyway - way out in the wilds of forests and rocky mountains.
Travis 2   Sat Sep 08, 2007 6:19 am GMT
Most historians will tell you that the American colonists considered themselves quite independent and culturally separated from the British even prior to the American Revolution, and these were actually part of the reasons for the separation. Several distinct dialects of English had already developed throughout the thirteen colonies by that time and more were to follow with the mass immigration throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Though the literature and music remained primarily European in style for many decades after the war--it wasn't until Dickinson and Whitman happened along that American literature really came into its own.

Also, I don't think that American literature would have been able to have the success that its had without foundations in British literature. Most of the Imperial powers at the time toted what they considered their strongest attributes to their colonies as a matter of National pride, and the British took their literature.
Travis 2   Sat Sep 08, 2007 6:34 am GMT
I still question whether one can consider immigrant such as James and Eliot part of ones literary heritage. I certainly don't consider Nabokov, Rand, Rachmaninoff, Dvorak, or Einstein part of the American heritage though they were citizens. Indeed, could that possibly make the London Bridge American because it is now in America?
Pub Lunch   Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:46 am GMT
<<there would be no film at all without early Hollywood establishing the film industry. >>

Travis my good friend - that is not true at all mate. Hollywood is not THE film industry but just one of many. The concept of the cinema was created in England or France in 1895 and indeed up until the First World War European cinema was the dominant force in Film. European cinema suffered badly during and in the years following this war which helped allow Hollywood to take its current role as the dominant force in the film industry (monetary speaking).

Hollywood has nothing to do with the role of other countries establishing their own film industries, because these are all separate self sustaining industries. In-fact many film industries, certainly in Europe, pre-date Hollywood.

Quite simply, Hollywood never invented the film industry because the film industry created it. And without almost exclusive European inventions there would be no film industry anyway. If Hollywood had never existed then there would still be film and a film industry, but the landscape would be much different (poorer – maybe).

I agree that America does have a culture, and if this culture had not permeated the planet the way it has then travelling to the US would be, for me as an Englishman, as interesting and different culturally as going to France or India or wherever. But as you say, because we are now so familiar and/or have adopted so much American culture and blended it with our own then America does appear to be cultureless.

The funny thing is that in much of what is sold across the world as iconic pieces of American culture are actually, in the main, mostly European cultural elements that America has absorbed and then repackaged and sold across the world as ‘American’ (in many instances these cultural ideals are brought by the country that spawned it - a bit like selling snow to an Eskimo!!).

I think the best examples of what is sold as ‘American culture’ but is essentially a re-branding of an earlier cultural element would be mainly iconic food symbols such as the hot dog, the doughnut, ice-cream, the hamburger, French fries, pizza, apple pie (as American as apple pie???).

Even Disney, until the digital age and with the exception of Dumbo simply took European stories/fairytales, all of which already existed as either cartoons or illustrated books, remade them slightly and then put them on the big screen (they were done very well though – better than what had been done before).

For some reason, and rather ridiculously, even the coffee house is thought of by many as 'an American invention', no doubt due to the domination of that awful franchise 'Starbucks'. (Actually, they opened a Starbucks a year or two ago to much media interest in Paris, the worlds cafe culture capital, and actually made it!! Like it or not you have to hand it to the Americans - they know what they are doing).

Sorry mate, I had my Weetabix this morning and can't stop typing.
Uriel   Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:13 am GMT
<<Is it called "outback" in Canada, or is that just Australia? Anyway - way out in the wilds of forests and rocky mountains. >>

I think "outback" is solely Australian.
Uriel   Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:18 am GMT
<<The funny thing is that in much of what is sold across the world as iconic pieces of American culture are actually, in the main, mostly European cultural elements that America has absorbed and then repackaged and sold across the world as ‘American’ (in many instances these cultural ideals are brought by the country that spawned it - a bit like selling snow to an Eskimo!!). >>

Well, as Travis mentioned, there are also such major cultural innovations as jazz and early rock 'n roll, which had their origins in African music. God knows what rap was spawned from, but that's an innovation as well that you can attribute to mainly black American culture, and it's fairly removed from most European influences.