American Literature vs British Literature

Travis 2   Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:33 am GMT
<<Hollywood is not THE film industry but just one of many.>>

<<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.>>

Of course I never meant to exclude other countries from their rightful place in the film industry or to insinuate that Americans had much to do with the invention of film itself. I miss wrote. I’m a very big fan of foreign films. What I meant to indicate was that Hollywood has been the primary not the sole locus of the film industry since its popularization and inevitable profitability in the 1920’s. This is early film for me. I should have been more precise in my wording, but I was trying for brevity. Also, though America had only a minor role in the very origins of film, it was American innovations that added sound (Walt Disney), color (Howard Hughes), and most of the technical effects that have added so much to the drama and realism of film today.
And I never meant or did say that American Culture developed entirely on its own. It is, after all, little over two-hundred-years old, and I don’t believe in spontaneous generation. But, as it has been recounted over and over again, America is a melting pot of cultures (or, more accurately, a tossed salad with little enclaves of tomato and romaine here and there). Slaves in the South picked up European instruments and began creating new music that blended the cultures and this eventually led to Jazz, Blues, Rock, R and B, Sole, Hip Hop, Rap etc. (I’m afraid that Celtic influences are primarily to blame for country) These are uniquely American forms not because they do not have foreign influences but because of the bringing together of foreign influences to make something new. The wonderful thing is that it has proliferated and returned to us from Europe and other places with their own unique styles added, thus completing the cycle. The British have done some amazing things with Rock and the French have made some amazing Jazz. That is the marvel of Mass Media. Unfortunately the drawback of Mass Media is that it can standardize culture and often leaves out some of the best parts of culture. Inevitably people end up thinking that McDonalds french fries and Paris Hilton are the end all of American culture. Very sad indeed.
Pub Lunch, I suggest that you do come to the United States and avoid the major cities because they are only going to reflect what you already know. I think most European tourists make that mistake. Why go to the National Galleries or the Guggenheim when you have the Louvre or to the Metropolitan Opera when you have Covent Gardens or even to Southern California when all you have to do is turn on your T.V. to see it? One thing that bothers me the most is when people think that the U.S. consists of New York and Los Angeles with a four-thousand kilometer vacuum in between. We have a National Park system that is roughly one and a half times the size of the British Isles. You can see bison, wolves, moose, and grizzly bear all living in the crater of one of the world’s only super volcanoes (easily capable of causing and extinction level event); go swim with the manatees in Florida; go see polar bear and walrus in Alaska and talk to the Inuet; go see Orca and dive in the coral reefs of Hawaii. Do the hula in a grass skirt. Or if you’re not a naturalist like me, eat shrimp etouffee or duck pontchartrain and then go the House of Blues. These are things you can’t see or do readily in Europe. America is an expansive country with diverse landscapes, biomes, and peoples, which—quite truthfully—is why so many of our poets tend to have their lines running off the page and why the prose tend to be so simple and organic. An English naturalist visiting the United States in the 19th century wrote about the terror he felt at being made to feel so small when first seeing the Redwood Forest. The landscapes for most of American history were pristine and found there way to the page, and this too can now be found in Europe. This is what Sandburg wrote. This is what Whitman, Steinbeck, and Jack London wrote. Look at J. K. Rowling. Does her writing more resemble Emily Bronte or Kate Chopin? What do you think caused the shift in literature from that High Victorian formalism to the form of literature we see today? It was a process of exchange. It is important to recall that, especially in this day-in-age, cultures interact and respond to one another continuously—especially if those cultures happen to be those of Brittan and the United States. I’m beginning to wonder if the question that started the forum isn’t a bit naïve when one considers that the biggest difference between contemporary British and American literature is a u in the word color. So, there is my response and my rant. Sorry to be so long winded, but I wanted to make sure that I was understood this time.
Uriel   Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:19 am GMT
Wow, Travis -- you DO have a soul! ;)

I'm with you on all of that. When I think of the United States of America, it's first and foremost the landscapes that I think of. Just like the song. :) ("O beautiful, for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain, for purple mountains' majesty, across the fruited plain" -- for the rest of you who don't know the reference.) Then the wildlife, as you say -- the elk and the buffalo and the eagles and bears and mountain lions and Rocky Mountain goats and pronghorn and bighorn and coyotes and loons and alligators and copperheads and skunks and raccoons and opossums, etc., etc. -- some of which we share with Europe and Asia, but many of which are unique to North America ("where the deer and the antelope play ..." to continue the song references). The cities are far less in my consciousness. McDonald's? Just one hamburger joint out of many -- and not the best one, either. Hollywood movies? Designed to be entertainment, not High Art. Literature? Well, keep in mind that authors are simply writing what they think is a good read -- it's only history (and a little talent, plus good marketing) that turns their stories into Literature with a capital L later on.
Pub Lunch   Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:59 pm GMT
Travis, that really was an excellent post mate.

<<You can see bison, wolves, moose, and grizzly bear all living in the crater of one of the world’s only super volcanoes (easily capable of causing and extinction level event);>>

Is that Yellowstone by any chance mate?? Wherever it is, it sounds absolutely amazing!!!

<<go swim with the manatees in Florida;>>

I’ve done that!! Amazing animals and a simple unforgettable experience.

<<Pub Lunch, I suggest that you do come to the United States and avoid the major cities because they are only going to reflect what you already know. I think most European tourists make that mistake>>

That is pretty much the mind set I have Travis, with the exception of New York and New Orleans, none of the cities in America have ever really interested me. I had a bit of banter with a bloke from Seattle recently; he was singing Seattle’s praises and another person we were with started saying how much they always wanted to go there. I basically asked "why??" I mean, I don’t doubt that it is beautiful or a wonderful place to live but with all the cities not to mention wonders of the world that need to be seen, why would I need to go to Seattle? What is there that I absolutely must see in Seattle?? He couldn’t really answer my question and maybe got a bit offended, which was not what I meant. It’s just, what does a modern city like that offer to me as a traveller (apart from the grave of Bruce Lee). Again I suppose it depends on what a person’s interests are really.

Actually Travis, I wrote a post about a week or so ago on the "can British people speak like Americans" thread and pretty much said what you mention regarding the phenomenal natural beauty & wildlife of the US.

I went backpacking not too long ago and spent a few weeks in the Western part of the states and as I said to Jasper, I wish I had spent longer there. I absolutely agree, the country is jaw droppingly incredible and I realise it depends on ones interest, but I think the US’s true delights really seem hidden from the world underneath its overt commercialism.

I spent three weeks in the West of the US a few years ago, as the final stop of my year long trek and only got to visit 2 states – California and Arizona. Mate, the scenery and wildlife or rather and quite simply the natural wonders I saw were absolutely indescribable – I don’t have a good enough grasp of the English language to convey quite how stunning some of the places were. I saw more beauty and diversity within these two states than I saw in the 8 months I spent in Oz, a place that sells it natural wonders to the world far more than the US seems to.

I’m constantly singing the praises of the landscapes of the US (despite only seeing a fraction of it) because no-one ever seems to be aware of any of it. The US surely has to have a landscape as diverse and as beautiful as any on this planet. Sadly, over here it is more the ‘urban’ film sets that are most promoted, essentially, "come and see where your favourite film was filmed" sort of thing.

The places that really stick out were Kings Canyon national park, the Redwoods, Yosemite, Monument valley & Sedona (especially Sedona!!!) Oh, Big Sur, a place on the California coast was a spectacular place as well. At times, I wish I had my own car I can tell you!!

<<it was American innovations that added sound (Walt Disney), color (Howard Hughes), and most of the technical effects that have added so much to the drama and realism of film today.>>

Oh I agree, America has certainly, and continually, pushed back the frontiers of what is possible to create visually on screen and has been responsible for the evolution of the motion picture more than any other. I didn’t mean to marginalise America’s contribution to film in anyway. I watched the film “Transformers” recently and although it may not be to everyone’s taste, I remember thinking that it was only the Americans that have the technology and the innovation to make a spectacle like that possible.

<<Do the hula in a grass skirt>>

Have you done the hula in a grass skirt Travis?? Be honest!!!!
Uriel   Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:31 am GMT
<<I saw more beauty and diversity within these two states than I saw in the 8 months I spent in Oz, a place that sells it natural wonders to the world far more than the US seems to.>>

Hmm. Well, WE know it's there! I guess it's because we have so many other things to "sell to the world", the natural scenery just gets lost in the mix.

<<I watched the film “Transformers” recently and although it may not be to everyone’s taste, I remember thinking that it was only the Americans that have the technology and the innovation to make a spectacle like that possible.>>

They've come a long way with CG. Must have been all that mucking around we did with cartoons for so long!


<<Sadly, over here it is more the ‘urban’ film sets that are most promoted, essentially, "come and see where your favourite film was filmed" sort of thing.>>

Actually, they film a lot of movies in New Mexico, too -- The Missing with Cate Blanchett and the awesome Tommy Lee Jones, the Tao of Steve with Donal Logue, White Sands (underrated but excellent flick with Willem Dafoe, Mickey Rourke, and Samuel L. Jackson before anyone had ever heard of him!), the upcoming remake of 3:10 to Yuma, all the Young Guns movies (shot in my own part of the state, actually!) But you probably have to be into westerns....
Uriel   Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:57 am GMT
Back to Brit Lit -- I just saw Sense and Sensibility. You know -- Emma Thompson, Hugh Grant, Kate Winslet, Alan Rickman. Now, those of you who know know that I have mentioned at least once or twice that I despise Jane Austen. But my mom said the costumes were excellent (she sews, so that's what she watches movies for half the time), and you only have to say the name "Alan Rickman" and all preconceptions and judgments are suspended (love the man!).

It was a pretty good flick! And I'm pretty sure I would have hated the same dialogue on the page. (I'm sure it was altered for cinematic purposes, of course, but it still had much of the same flavor.) So, sometimes a change of medium does a world of good.

It was, I admit, hard not to watch it without playing "Six Degrees of Separation" (or at least the British version of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon) in my head, because of course Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman played fellow teachers in the Harry Potter movies (where I'm sure their characters would have utterly despised each other!), husband and wife in Love, Actually (with Hugh as their brother/brother in law!). It was also amusing to see the actress who played Mrs. Umbridge in S & S as well -- married to Hugh Laurie, who is mean & nasty as House but simply mean & long-suffering in Sense and Sensibility. (He doesn't have many lines but he gets in some great zingers with what he has!)

Watching all this makes me realize just how small and incestuous the British film acting community must be -- and how little time Hugh Grant, John Hanna, Sean Connery, Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, and Judi Dench have to get their asses -- sorry, arses -- into a cameo in one of the two remaining Harry Potter movies.

Reading the BBC review reminded me of how skewed the British perception of the American movie-going public really is, because they insist on believing that we would only know Alan Rickman from his turn as the villain in Die Hard 1: Before The Flood. Dude, that movie was so long ago I don't even REMEMBER who the villain was! It's about as realistic as saying we would only know Russell Crowe as the bad guy in Virtuosity -- and I bet Denzel Washington doesn't even remember being in Virtuosity. But seriously, does the Beeb not realize that American audiences would be just as likely to remember Rickman from Galaxy Quest, Dogma, the aforementioned Love, Actually and Harry Potter flicks, and even in more obscure ones like Truly, Madly, Deeply? The guy isn't exactly a recluse who only makes a movie once a decade, you know. I mean, he's not quite the Hollywood whore that Rutger Hauer was (who wasn't untalented, just couldn't say no to bad crap), but he's been in plenty of mainstream movies on this side of the pond as well.
Travis   Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:48 pm GMT
Just so you guys know, the "Travis" above is not me. The poster does not seem to be a troll or like at all, though, so I they may just be some individual who happens to be using the same name unknowingly. If they are knowingly using the same name, I really do not know why they are attributing their own ideas to me.
Travis   Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:50 pm GMT
That should be "so I think they may just be some individual who happens to be using the same name unknowingly".
Rene   Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:17 pm GMT
I love Jane Austen, and I've seen all of the movies based on her works. The Emma Thompson version of S+S was pretty good right up until the end. Then when she started crying I started laughing and it kind of ruined the moment.

You're right Uriel, a lot of Americans watch way more British cinema then they think we do. When I saw Mathew McFadden in P+P I recognised him from MI-5 believe it or not. When I saw James McAvoy in Becoming Jane, I recognised him from the T V remake of Macbeth. Ioan Gruffudd in the Fantasitic Four I recognised from the Horatio Hornblower series. And I recognised the Phantom through his mask as the guy that was in Mrs. Brown. So yeah, assuming that Americans watch nothing British is wrong.
Travis   Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:42 pm GMT
Sure - that would reduce the chance of confusion a good bit, considering that some here did think the Travis who has posted in the last month in this thread was me.
John English   Sat Sep 15, 2007 9:45 pm GMT
Rene, whilst you may be right to a certain extent, are you sure you're really indicative of the population as a whole. Besides I doubt those who frequent international boards, (I realise the Internet is global, but some sites attract more nationals of a country than another) have no interest in the outside world, even if they are American.


By the way have you seen this.

Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question

Perhaps ignorance is bliss, us British are often portrayed as intelligent, (realise this is factual untrue, besides, we have had successive labour governments since then), but I hate cynical, sarcastic, and pessimistic outlook that seems endemic in our society, and prefer the outgoing, friendly , optimism of the yanks.
Uriel   Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:30 am GMT
Hey, John English -- British movies aren't even in the foreign films section at the video store. Yeah, we watch 'em, and we know plenty of your actors from crossover roles AND from imported flicks. They may not be as popular as domestic movies, but they do get watched. I'm a typical movie-goer, and I've seen 24-Hour Party People, Snatch, Circus, Trainspotting, Shallow Grave, Sense & Sensibility, Calendar Girls, King Arther (terrible), Children of Men (Clive redeemed himself there), all the Harry Potter movies, the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, any number of Hugh Grant movies (couldn't get into About A Boy, though), Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, plenty of Monty Python, Time Bandits, Gosford Park, Hideous Kinky, Truly Madly Deeply -- and that's just off the top of my head from the last few years!

Not to mention that PBS almost evenly divides its airtime between old British TV shows and nature shows.... ;P


What we DON'T share is a lot of pop culture recognition. In the wedding scene at the beginning of Love Actually, the singer who pops out to sing Love, Love, Love was obviously Somebody, but I have no idea who. Likewise, a lot of your major singers and bands and tabloid figures are entirely unknown to most of us in the US (and I would hope that the same is true in reverse!).
Rene   Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:20 am GMT
"Rene, whilst you may be right to a certain extent, are you sure you're really indicative of the population as a whole."

Okay, maybe not really. I find most English accents extremely attractive on men, so I watch a lot of English stuff. (I am literally blushing here but I thought I'd make the confession for the sake of unbiased opinions.) I always like the classics and England seems to do a lot of adaptations of them, so I got into it that way. The one thing I don't like is British action films. They just can't do them like Americans. I get bored. Yeah, I know that doesn't make sense: I can sit through six hours of Charles Dickens (spread out over several days of course) but Snatch put me to sleep twice and I had to rewind to watch what I missed.

Uriel- King Arthur was dreadful wasn't it. I couldn't stand Clive Owen in it. At least the pacing was good, but it had an American director and producer so that must have been why.
Uriel   Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:20 am GMT
It sucked my ASS -- I was SO disappointed. I mean, how can you take a story like that, a CAST like that, and fuck it up so royally (please excuse the pun)? I mean, jeez.

I can't ever say that I hate Clive Owen -- just can't do it -- but I sure felt sorry for him, having to wade through that sorry mess. I felt much more cheerful about him once I saw him in Sin City. NOW we're talkin'! And I did dig him in Children of Men (along with the incomparable Michael Caine -- he always looks like he's enjoying the hell out of himself!). He even perked up Gosford Park, which to be honest, I couldn't make heads or tails of most of the time.

Hmmm. I don't think an English accent makes a man sexy if he just isn't. Neither does Irish or Scottish. But it does enhance someone who's already got it going on. Australian, on the other hand, adds gratuitous bonus points to almost anyone.

Yeah, I think we do action better than they do. Not half as well as those Hong Kong flicks, though!
Uriel   Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:24 am GMT
Not sure I could handle six hours of Dickens, 'cause I'm not a big fan .... except for this TV miniseries of A Tale of Two Cities I once saw in high school that starred James Wilby as Sidney Carten. I had no trouble watching him for six hours....
You know me   Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:25 am GMT
Uriel, you sure are a cussy gal!