American Literature vs British Literature

Yeah, I agree, the accent is definately more of an enhancement thing, but when it does enhance.... well I'll leave that a blank.

Hong Kong flicks! What, like Crouching Tiger Hiden Dragon? Sorry, but that one didn't do anything for me. Are you talking Bruce Lee films here? I think I'm missing something.

<<Australian, on the other hand, adds gratuitous bonus points to almost anyone. >>

Please tell me you are joking Uriel!!! Those Aussies accents have got nothing on the English accents!!!! I dated an Aussie girl for almost a year and I can honestly say I never could get used to the voice - horrible accent!!!!

For me, the Aussie accent has to rank as the second worse accent from an English speaking country - number one is the South African accent -uurrgghhhh!!!

Oh Uriel, speaking of British film have you seen these recentish classics?? Secrets & Lies, Vera Drake, Shirley Valentine, The Long Good Friday, Educating Rita, Mona Lisa, Billy Elliot, 28 days Later & Gregories Girl??? All very good examples of British cinema at its absolute best (the first two films, directed by Mike Leigh contain two of the best performances by a leading actress that I have ever seen).

I agree Rene - British action flicks are the awful!!!!!!!!!

The choice of 'a' or 'an' before a word is unrelated to the initial letter. It reflects pronunciation. 'A' before a consonant sound, 'an' before a vowel sound. "A used book", "An unusual book". Some pronounce historical with an aspirated 'h" others tend more toward a haughty faux-French silent 'h'. Both of these habits exist in some parts of both the U.S. and the U.K.

I'm not aware of any American superiority complex in the fields of language or literature. Americans tend to be open minded while British tend to be egotistical snobs about "We started this language so it is British." In fact, many of today's characteristics of British "received pronunciation" are evolutions that appeared after the language moved to America (initially in the period of Jamestown to revolution or 1620-1775). One oddity in particular is the recent (last hundred years) proliferation of rhotic pronunciation. Although it is a feature of some accent groups in America, most retain the older non-rhotic pronunciation which is fading fast from England.

The vast majority of 'Americanisms', other than slang, can be found among native speakers in some corner of the U.K. If only received pronunciation is correct, half of British fail to speak British English.

No one in England speaks as did Shakespeare so we can all give up this battle of which accent group is correct and accept that both British and American accents are changed from that of dear old King George the first (make that George II since George I didn't even speak English).

And another thing; nothing is 'obvious' about what country's literature is richer than that of another. This is a matter of opinion. We can surely say that England has a longer history of literature in English but we can hardly enjoy reading that which is much older than American colonization since the language of 300 years ago was not what either British or Americans speak today. Surely we can't attribute a nation's richer literature to a longer history or pure blood ancestry since all Americans have the same length of ancestry if not in North America, as it would be for a Navajo, then in England, some other European country, Asia, Africa or wherever. As the Nazis finally had to admit, pure blue blood ancestry is not superior to that of others.

How do you arrive at "Did we got up on the wrong side of bed?" I should think it is "Did we get up..." which means you try so hard to correct American English you failed to realize that in this sentence, 07VN was correct.

I do have a potty mouth. Sorry if it offends.... You can blame my mother -- mouth like a sailor, especially when she's driving!



<<Please tell me you are joking Uriel!!! Those Aussies accents have got nothing on the English accents!!!! I dated an Aussie girl for almost a year and I can honestly say I never could get used to the voice - horrible accent!!!!

For me, the Aussie accent has to rank as the second worse accent from an English speaking country - number one is the South African accent -uurrgghhhh!!! >>

Now, see, I find both of those pretty sexy. I think it's an American thing, to find non-rhotic accents interesting, especially since we're mostly rhotic -- it's the attraction of differences. And since we don't distinguish much between 'em.... they're all good.;P

How on earth could you spend a year with someone whose voice you couldn't stand? Unless your relationship was mainly physical with a "don't talk" rule!

Somewhere on the BBC I read that perceptions of unpleasantness toward Americans had gotten so bad that one English husband asked his American wife to please not talk on the subway -- uh, underground -- lest her accent provoke nasty comments from other passengers. I just thought, what kind of husband would do such a thing? Ridiculous.



<<Oh Uriel, speaking of British film have you seen these recentish classics?? Secrets & Lies, Vera Drake, Shirley Valentine, The Long Good Friday, Educating Rita, Mona Lisa, Billy Elliot, 28 days Later & Gregories Girl??? All very good examples of British cinema at its absolute best (the first two films, directed by Mike Leigh contain two of the best performances by a leading actress that I have ever seen). >>

Of those, I've seen Billy Elliot, which was mostly depressing and didn't do much for me, and 28 Days Later, which made me want to get a rabies shot, which I think was the intended effect, so it was very good!


<<I'm not aware of any American superiority complex in the fields of language or literature. Americans tend to be open minded while British tend to be egotistical snobs about "We started this language so it is British." >>

Yeah, English as a language isn't really a treasured part of our heritage, since often our ancestors spoke something completely different -- we treat English more as a lingua franca. The English First movements and English-only statutes that you see cropping up here and there in the US are more a reflection of that use of a universal language as a bonding mechanism and as a tool of assimilation than because of any emotional attachment to the language per se. I don't agree with them on a legislative level, but I see where they are coming from from a social perspective. It's just that I'm a hard-headed old-schooler -- Land of the Free means Butt Out of My Business, Politician.

I think it's also the reason why we tend to take a more utilitarian approach to language and are less precious about it, and more willing to accept new words. Although Shakespeare coined tons of them, so its a habit that is endemic to English, even though it's usually attributed to Americans.

As for our literary tradition, I think Americans have tended to focus more on scientific discovery as our forte and our pride and joy, so while we have plenty of great authors, they don't necessarily get the notice and acclaim of the public eye. We are content to not worry about competing with the British on that subject. Which is maybe not fair to our authors, but goes to show you that there is a subtle difference in our priorities.

<<Hong Kong flicks! What, like Crouching Tiger Hiden Dragon? Sorry, but that one didn't do anything for me.>>

Rene, Rene, Rene! I LOVED Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon! Never seen any Bruce Lee movies. Not really a kung fu flick fan, I'm just saying that when it comes to action, you gotta give credit where credit's due. Look at the Replacement Killers, or Romeo Must Die or Unleashed, with Jet Li (originally released in the UK as Danny the Dog) -- dang! (And the fact that Jet Li is a handsome man doesn't hurt at all, either!)

Don't know if anybody is reading this particular thread any more, but I felt I had to put in my 2 cents worth. Isn't saying Britain is superior to America in literature and will always be sort of like saying they will always be an older country than we are? It's certainly a fact that America wasn't producing many great works of literature in the 16th and 17th centuries, but then there weren't many Americans around then either. Put in a different perspective, you could also say that Britain will never reach the heights of Roman or Greek literature because nothing ever written in Britain compares to The Odyssey. Comparison's like these are only valid if you compare apples to apples after all.

All very true.

Shakespeare and Dickens...........How about Milton? Why do people who argue for English literature's superiority always go back centuries before America existed. As for my opinion, I see a big difference in style, feeling, and purpose between the two nations' literature. I won't say that one is better than the other, but, being an American, American literature appeals to me a lot more than British lit does. It seems less pretentious to me.

Honestly I don't think there is a huge difference between the two. Literature from anywhere all starts with a concept that just grows into something either horrid or beautiful. Slang is different between the different regions and some slang is completely created. Realistically it is not the origen of the author that makes the literature good in the here and now but the time period. Shakespear was a wonderful writer for his time period. Most of the jokes and humor are lost to us now as society has evolved. When reading and compairing literature I do think it is more important to remember the time period in which it was written than where the author was from.

I was suprised that the Bronte sisters, Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf, Emily Dickinson, Charles Dickens and Mary Wollstonecraft were not listed. These were very important, not only in their own days, but today as well. They provide a very accurate picture of the social life of those days and were one of the first to give actual form the the novel as we know it today. As far as 'having the best literature', is concerned, there is a distinction between American Literature and British Literature. British literature has much more history and social sophistication whereas the American Literature of those day mainly targets the forming of a country. Yes, Britain has produced many famous writers as well as America did, however, Britain did have more time to produce writers. That is their advantage. America had the advantage of knowing literature and not having to 'invent' it. They merely adjusted it to their environment. It is a matter of preferences.

Is it just me or do some people on here talk rubbish?

"Somewhere on the BBC I read that perceptions of unpleasantness toward Americans had gotten so bad that one English husband asked his American wife to please not talk on the subway -- uh, underground -- lest her accent provoke nasty comments from other passengers. I just thought, what kind of husband would do such a thing? Ridiculous."
_____________________________

He was a sensible husband. There's nothing more grating to the ear than the sound of an accent spoken by an English-speaking foreigner.

American accents are like listening to fingernails being scraped down a blackboard. I'd have told her to shut up, too. American women are loud and annoying. Whenever they speak you feel like smacking your fist in their mouths then cracking them around the head a few times.

What did Elizabeth Gaskell do to you for you to exclude her from that list of female luminaries in the world of the British classical novels? :-)

OK OK - I get the message - Mrs Gaskell (a latter day contemporary of the three Bronte sisters) is best remembered for her novel "Cranford", which is currently being serialised on BBC1 TV each Sunday at 21:00hrs.

I have only watched two pre-set recorded episodes, but the program, as with all of her books, definiteley appeal to women much more than they do to men, and that's for sure. Cranford is a village (modelled on the actual village - now a fair sized town - of Knutsford, in Mrs Gaskell's native Cheshire, England, and seems to be populated entirely by elderly gossipy, quarrelsome, waspish, sometimes pleasant, sometimes mega vindictive, always twee and fey in their frilly little bonnets and all drooling at the mouth over the young (and single) doctor who has moved into the village to find that all these women suddenly acquire strange and unexplained ailments. Then a businessman throws the spanner in the works by his plans to lay down the first railway line which will run right through the village (this book was written in 1853 but set in 1843, at the time when Britain was experiencing the world's first development and expansion of a railway system, which was gradually taking over from the old horse drawn carriages.)

As it happens the doctor takes up with a girl of his own age - duly predictable..... The cast list is quite impressive though - Eileen Atkins, Judi Dench, Philip Glenister, Francesca Annis, Imelda Staunton, Julia McKenzie, Barbara Flynn...and the mega dishy Simon Woods who plays Dr Harrison. His pic is in the link.

Elizabeth Gaskell (most well known simply as Mrs Gaskell for some obscure reason, a bit like Elizabeth Beaton always being referred to as Mrs Beaton, the world's first writer of cookery books - maybe, and oddly, they did so to give prominence to their marital status! Mrs Beaton died when she was only 28 so maybe one of her recipes went all pear shaped...) also wrote a biography of Charlotte Bronte, as well as "North and South" and "Wives and Daughters", among others. All so very, very feminine......just like your list, Guest!

http://www.cranfordchronicles.com/

British literature has much more history and social sophistication whereas the American Literature of those day mainly targets the forming of a country. Yes, Britain has produced many famous writers as well as America did, however, Britain did have more time to produce writers. That is their advantage. America had the advantage of knowing literature and not having to 'invent' it.
____________________________________

First, I’d like to say the notion that the British or any currently existing European culture ‘invented’ literature is absolute garbage. It would require a complete lack of knowledge on history and a suspension of disbelief to even conceive. One of the oldest known literary texts that we still have is from Babylonia and precedes the Magna Carta by some four-thousand years. While the Northern Europeans were chasing each other around with clubs there were Greek Dramatists and Comedians, Roman Poets, and many more writers from the Middle and Far East.

Secondly, to preclude American writing from having “social sophistication” illustrates a great lack of knowledge of American literature at the time. There is far more political and social commentary in American literature of the Nineteenth Century than there is about “building a country”. Take for instance the feminist tones of Edith Wharton, Kate Chopin, or Louisa May Alcott. “The Scarlet Letter” is not about surviving the wilds or the forming of a nation. It is a critique of puritanical ideals. “The Wizard of OZ” is definitely no ferry tale piece either; it is a genuine political critique of American Government as was “Madam Butterfly” when it first started out as an American play. And Mark Twain and Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” are centered on the subject of slavery. Many large, sophisticated social and moral issues were taken up by early American writers—certainly far more sophisticated social issues then those conveyed by Austen. Who, by the way, was no great feminist of her time and managed to write the same central plot for every one of her novels. And I would say that many American stories of the time had far more to do with realism than the wild romantics of “Wuthering Heights” or “Jane Air”. Don’t get me wrong. I love Austen’s wit and we can all do with a little romance from time to time. But I do think that Guest’s comments are a little off mark. All those great women writers were incredible at what they did, but the comment only holds true if we limit our concept of social sophistication to the every day bantering of England’s Leisure Class. American writers have tended toward finding the profound in the most common of places, especially its people (e.g. “The Grapes of Wrath” and “Of Mice and Men”). I think the difference Guest seems to note between the two literatures, but not fully understand, has more to do with class structure: the rigid English class system of the time vs. the malleable American class system. Apparently social sophistication has more to do with bone china and pedigree than the evolution of thought.

I do agree with one thing Guest said. British literature certainly has a much longer history. And Adam, the only reason why American women seem so boisterous to you is because the average American woman has more balls than any British man I’ve ever met. And I have yet to see a woman with that particular set of genitalia, American or otherwise. Keep up your inflammatory comments; they are good for a laugh. ( ;