The Great Cultural Writing Divide

[Duffy]

So. Here we are. Somebody said something that got me thinking about literary inspirations and where a writer draws his experience from.

It dawned on me that the vast majority of this website and the writers on it are American, Australian or somewhere else far away from Britain. The only exception I know of is Flames of Hyperion.

Essentially, given Americans don't appear to study British literature and the same classics we base our writing on and sense of language identity, can they appreciate it when we draw on British literature in writing? Vice versa, is it easy for British writers to identify with American styles?

How many of you have read Jane Austen or the Bronte sister's work?

Do you understand the meaning of Shakespeare, not as a symbolical and historic work, but as a vital part of the British culture? Does Sonnet 12 make you cry or become confused?

This isn't a which country is better thread, let's not go there, I just want to explore some things.

If I chose to continue to draw from Jane Austen, Charles Dickens and the very gothic edges of Wuthering Heights and other 'classics' I want to know if it's going to fall on death ears and not be recognised as such, or if it's goign to be appreciated.

Ammendum: what are the AMERICAN classics everyone in the states learns in high school, like we learn The Inspector Calls, Hamlet and the like in ours?

Saying that...sorry to waffle, but we did do Of Mice and Men and Polish works in GCSE exams...so is America so diverse in it's education?

/rant off.

[Slavegirl]

I read as much British Lit as American Lit and absolutely hated American Lit, I think Hemmingway is the devil. I love Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte and Thomas Hardy, but can't stand Steinbeck or Faulkner. I think that you're safe writing in the footsteps of Dickens or Bronte. It won't fall on deaf ears (not death... deaf as in they can't hear).

[Visla Eraclaire]

I find very little relevance in classical literature. I read almost not at all. My writing is more heavily inspired by theater and screenwriting than any authors.

That being said, most of the literature I read in school in English was just that, English and not American. Dickens and Shakespeare are still the order of the day in most American grade schools, I think. They were a decade ago when I was there.

[Taskmienster]

All my literary interests has been in European literature, notably British since it is normally hailed as the best. However, I also study only a lot of European philosophers. I personally don't like "American Classics"... they're droll, just like I think the art from here is, and the philosophy that comes out of here is. It's a personal feel though. I'm not a fan of American... anything though.

Notable classic authors I like most:

Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Pearl S. Buck, Dante, and George Orwell.

I can't stand:

Hemmingway, Bronte (any of them), Steinbeck, Jane Austin, and others.

[oblueknighto]

Wow, literature question?

I'm from Australia and I usually don't read any classics, haven't been through the stage in high school when I will be forced to read them. I usually read Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Comedy stuff. I don't like pretty much anything that isn't epic.

I only read stuff from like Anthony Horowitz, Matthew Reilly, Paul Jennings, Eoin Colfer. Stuff that is interesting and can occupy my time replacing boredom.

[Duffy]

Some of the above surprises me, seemingly I was wrong. I always assume British Literature is taught, well, only in Britain, with smattering of world writing thrown in for good measure. I'm pleased to know that it's wider than it seems.

Although this explains a few things, looking at you Task :p

How can you not like Austen? (Sincere question.)

[oblueknighto]

Uhh, maybe it's because Task doesn't like reading that style of writing.

This actually tells us a lot about how different he judges. I mean, he actually has a firm opinion on what he likes and doesn't like. So possibly it might affect his judge but by the look of things it doesn't... much.

[Terror's Thrall]

...European literature, notably British since it is normally hailed as the best

I would dispute that.

However, I have only read a few books of non-English/American origin so I'm probably not qualified to.
I've read some of the classics, though as above I dislike Austen. Dickens and Wells are two I enjoy. I read mostly more modern stuff though. In terms of plays etc I've only really read work by Shakespeare and Arthur Miller, and neither really affect my writing. Though I do like Miller's character work.

[Visla Eraclaire]

How can you not like Austen? (Sincere question.)

I despise the idea that anything is possessed of such an inherent good quality that it ought be appreciated by all. Writing is just like any other art. While it may be judged in some respect for its technical skill or merit, as a form of entertainment and a source of enjoyment, it can never have any absolute, non-relative value.

[Saxon]

I'm a little shocked at the hatred of Steinbeck around here. His work doesn't start and end with Of Mice and Men. Jesus. I'll fire back and say I've never been a fan of Shakespeare and I don't recall having read anything even close to Charles Dickens that wasn't covered in the show Wishbone.

That being said, I pretty much read anything that draws my interest, and sometimes things that don't. Most of the books I've read are from American authors, but I try to keep an open mind. Unlike a lot of other people, I use books as a form of research. Looking at what other authors have done and try to learn from them. Pick apart things they've done and cannibalize anything I find useful. Most of that usually applies to mechanics, pacing, action, etc. but I think I've gotten a lot of inspiration from reading from other authors too.

A couple months ago I was getting tired of reading fan fiction drivel and I wasn't even sure how much 'prestige' I could tack onto things I've read. I also wanted to be able to start developing different ways of thinking to come up with more ideas for stories. So, I spent a lot of money trying to track down books from authors I knew where decent to learn from them i.e. Steinbeck, Lovecraft, Robert Louis Stevenson, Arthur Conan Doyle (I have two volumes of all his work sitting on the night stand behind me collecting dust. I'm still trying to figure out when I'd get to read it).

But really, I don't think either British or American are better. Just like everyone bleeds the same color, every author should be given a fair shake. And besides, there were few things I ever read in high school that teachers focused our entire attention on that I considered worth my while. Accidental short stories like To Build A Fire and stuff from Poe had a much longer lasting impression on me.


How can you not like Austen? (Sincere Question)

Who?

[Duffy]

From a literary perspective Visla, Austen is considered one of a slew of writers that are almost canonised to sainthood, but of course it's relative. I don't enjoy her work, but I certainly appreciate it's magnitude.

The question was to Task in particular, but I extend that to all.

[Saxon]

The question was to Task in particular, but I extend that to all.

*Takes out tape and re-inserts it*

Who?

Anyway. I agree with Visla, a writer's work and how people appreciate it is completely relative. If everybody liked and disliked the same things there'd be no need for creativity or the desire to have new ideas, thus no reason for writers to even bother writing in the first place.

Really, I think this cultural divide is just an exaggeration. I don't know how they teach in british schools, but the majority of the stuff I've ever read in an American school has been a combination of British and American literature and I've hated the majority of it. Perhaps it's our good ol'e educational system at work, but most of those books they've given students to choke down have just sucked. It's more a credit to our educational system in the states and their choice of 'substantial reading', I think.


Essentially, given Americans don't appear to study British literature and the same classics we base our writing on and sense of language identity, can they appreciate it when we draw on British literature in writing? Vice versa, is it easy for British writers to identify with American styles?

I don't think it matters, really. Neither American nor British literature hold anything more special over the other because each can be accredited for certain things. Shakespeare for his plays and the creation of 100+ words used in the modern english language, to Lovecraft being the grandfather of the modern day horror genre.

Sure, either side have specific styles that more writers adhere to then they would think, but I don't think it really means anything. I'm on book 20 of a 30 book series written by an alleged british writer with stories based solely in America after the destruction of the modern-day world through nuclear war. Honestly, I can't even tell he's british by anything he's written and the only reason I suspect he is not on this side of the lake is from a bio I read of his that mentioned he and his collaborator were from London.

But, in the end, it's a moot argument. As I've stated earlier, the schools I attended as an American have taught both British and American literature making your claim that we aren't taught British Literature false. Moreso, I think for reasons like that and the idea that a lot of Americans typically read books from writers outside of this country as well as inside of it, we've been innoculated from picking apart different styles based on cultural differences.

[Duffy]

Generally speaking, classical literature is anything written pre 1900.

Due to globalisation, most things written after then dont' encapsulate the same sense of nationality that the Victorian and earlier British writers did. Reading Austen you get a true sense of the country and social environment at the time.

To be honest, she is a dialogue master but nothing more, her worlds are drab beyond her character's thoughts and she doesn't do anything exciting, what she does do, is write a seductive tale of class vs gender, and does so well.

Dickens is just the God Father of British Literature, sheer genius.

I didn't understand Shakesepeare until recently, after studying Much Ado About Nothing...

[Visla Eraclaire]

I submit that there is likely more difference among American schools than between British schools and whatever one might select as an "average" American school. Since education is usually administered by localities and nominally by states, there's just an absurd variety. I remember when I was in highschool there was a huge difference between teachers in terms of what they'd have students read, not even getting into differences between two schools in the same city, two school systems in neighboring cities, two states, and so on.

That being said, the only book I really found memorable from high school assigned reading was Alas, Babylon. It was really refreshing to read about a nuclear holocaust in 9th grade english after having Charles Paid-By-The-Word Dickens and Little Goddamned Women to read in middle school.

Edit: Where do you get the idea that "classical literature" means pre-1900. I would imagine classical literature would refer to things like the Illiad and the Aeniad... Maybe it's a language thing, but "classical" tends to refer to antiquity with a good frequency in my experience, and never to the arbitrary pre 20th century dividing line.

[Duffy]

Damned if I know.

Ask my English Lecturer, she has a PHD in Pretending To Know About Books apparently.

[Saxon]

Generally speaking, classical literature is anything written pre 1900.

Bullshit. The Victorian Era may have been the British Hey-Day, but American literature had a lot of growth during the 20th century that greatly affects our literature in this country today. Besides, what does it even matter what century a book comes from for it to be a classic? All that is is just prejudicial semantics.

All I've ever considered a classic to be is something written by a writer that is considered by many to have achieved something more then most writers ever hope to. I.E. Mark Twain, Steinbeck, Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard, Hemmingway, Edgar Allan Poe, etc.

Even if I didn't like something a writer stated above wrote, I still acknowledge their work has affected literature on a very large scale.

[Taskmienster]

Yeah... my school was a private christian school that took the "christian" way too seriously. We read a lot of books that were simply little more than classics that had something to do with good moral values associated with religion. Other than that, we tended not to get too much into anything else, which was boring to me... since I despise religion.

However, from what I remember reading in school, my favorites had to have been 1982, Fahrenheit 451, The Great Gatsby, The Good Earth, and Lord of the Flies.


Other than that, I don't pull any like or dislike factor from what I used to read into how I judge, or how I see other's writings. Honestly, I don't read anything even remotely related to what I judge on Althanas. I read pure philosophy constantly, that's about it. I study it, buy more, re-read personal stuff I have at home, and study my text books a lot. So I mean, when it comes down to it, my perception on how to write isn't founded or based on what I used to read for school, or either British or any other nation's influences.

I don't like Austin because, she's boring. I can't stand droll writing, purple prose without reason, or anything that doesn't make me think. I adore satires. I despise boring, overly elaborate, detailed descriptions about things that should take a fifth of the pages that it actually takes to write it. Dickens, while a good writer, was uninteresting in my opinion at least. Shakespere, hailed as amazing, was obscure and difficult to understand, though I agree he was brilliant, only a few of his works stand out to me. Steinbeck, in my opinion, is a lot like Thoreau in my personal feel for the writing in general, not bad, but bloody boring.

[Duffy]

I suppose this all comes about from British literary history being a good few hundred years older than America itself. What Americans consider classic literature isn't the same as us, because our time scales are different. Of course, Modern Classics are just as good as 'classics,' but when you study literature over here, things pre 1900 are considered classic, and anything following it post modern or some other such nonsense.

(Thanks Task, that's settled a doubt I had about something, good to here you read Philosophy, I'll pilfer my library for brownie points later :D)

[Taskmienster]

This isn't a which country is better thread, let's not go there, I just want to explore some things.

You said that in the first post, and yet the last one seems somewhat contradictory to that.

[Duffy]

I don't believe it was but having re-read it, I guess you could take it. I was merely commenting on the reaction to the pre-1900 comment. Would not the last hundred years of American literature cover a considerable portion of all literature produced?

Whereas in relative terms, a hundred years in terms of 'British' literature is merely a drop in the ocean.

It doesn't mean it's better in any way shape or form, it just means British ideals of classics are different, nothing more.

[Saxon]

I don't believe it was but having re-read it, I guess you could take it. I was merely commenting on the reaction to the pre-1900 comment. Would not the last hundred years of American literature cover a considerable portion of all literature produced?

Whereas in relative terms, a hundred years in terms of 'British' literature is merely a drop in the ocean.

It doesn't mean it's better in any way shape or form, it just means British ideals of classics are different, nothing more.

Yeah, that'll be taken well.

I, personally, don't really give a damn what sort of scale the UK decides to weigh it's own literature except when they try to put it in comparison to American Lit. Sure, America has been around for a shorter time, but it can be argued that given the refinement of the great thinkers in our country a lot of our classics tend to have the same resonance a british writer might have. It's not like our forefathers and their offspring spent the rest of their lives living in a bubble once they declared American soil sovereign from British rule. How long either country has existed is irrelevent.

So again, I'd argue that classics aren't determined by the time in which they are written or who they are written by but how the rest of the world takes to it once it's published. If everything was great because it was 200+ years old we'd all be jocking for heirloom dungarees our great, great, great, great grandfather wore.

[Visla Eraclaire]

I'm going to re-assert that the term "classical" should be reserved for the classical age of antiquity and people should get their heads out of their asses about anointing literary periods as "classic" relative to their own country.

[Taskmienster]

I'm going to re-assert that the term "classical" should be reserved for the classical age of antiquity and people should get their heads out of their asses about anointing literary periods as "classic" relative to their own country.

Here here.

Wanna know what classic's I read? The Republic, by Plato. :p

I'd have to agree with that fully.

[Visla Eraclaire]

Here here.

Wanna know what classic's I read? The Republic, by Plato. :p

I'd have to agree with that fully.

Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic Wars.

Gaul: It's Divided Into Three Parts, Bitches.

[Inkfinger]

That being said, the only book I really found memorable from high school assigned reading was Alas, Babylon. It was really refreshing to read about a nuclear holocaust in 9th grade english after having Charles Paid-By-The-Word Dickens and Little Goddamned Women to read in middle school.

I finished Alas, Babylon at 10:30pm on September 10, 2001. I went to bed and had nightmares about nuclear bombs. It was one of the most ironic happenstances I have ever gone through. Ever. And it is an awesome book.

More on topic, Vislas's pretty much said my opinion on "classic" lit.

[Duffy]

I did say before it was the general opinion of literary professors and English Lecturers in my University, and then went on to discuss why.

But never mind.

I've just finished Dan Brown's latest.

Darwin can frankly frack himself :D

[The International]

I've just finished Dan Brown's latest.

Darwin can frankly frack himself :DI just started The Lost Symbol yesterday! Is it good?

[Visla Eraclaire]

I finished Alas, Babylon at 10:30pm on September 10, 2001. I went to bed and had nightmares about nuclear bombs. It was one of the most ironic happenstances I have ever gone through. Ever. And it is an awesome book.

More on topic, Vislas's pretty much said my opinion on "classic" lit.


One of the best book-related stories I have ever heard. Literature did 9/11.

[AdventWings]

Heh. I guess there's no room for Asian literature in here.

Well, doesn't really bother me. Translation is a messy ordeal and I'll bet half of the story is lost between the cultural and the language divide. Therefore, I won't make any comments on the differences between Latin-based and non-Latin literature unless someone else wants to bring it up.

As for English literature, I haven't been keeping up with the recent trends. The latest book I've read which is in English was Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Don't ask me how it is, I don't want to re-read it yet.

One book I'll give you is Lord of the Flies which I read back in high school. (Wow, 6 years already.) That was a nice read. I don't really care about "who wrote what" but more on "is this book good?" If it's good, good. It doesn't really matter to me if the guy's a Pulitzer-prize winner if I don't understand what he wrote.

[Sighter Tnailog]

In thinking about this questions, I realized that almost all of the fiction I've read outside of scifi/fantasy in the past few years has been pretty strictly non-English. I've read Marquez, Neruda, Dostoevsky, Nabokov, Borges, Calvino, etc...and while it's all translated, it's been very good.

Also, the Hebrew Bible. There's some amazing stuff in there, especially in the prophets and the psalms. And I can read a good bit of it in Hebrew now too!

[Caden Law]

I'm a fan of both American and English literature, but I prefer the modern age in both cases and have a marked preference for Fantasy and Science Fiction. I'm still in love with older concepts, but not so much with the style of writing used for them (way, way, way too frickin' purple in some cases).

And unlike some of you, I actually happen to like Hemingway from time to time. His writing is an acquired taste but if you actually take the time to pick at it enough, you'll find a whole crapload of background material and subtext, emotion and meaning loaded into it. The man could throw in as many layers of story as any of his precursors or contemporaries with far, far fewer words. Study his life a little bit and make the connect that a lot of his work was at least semi-autobiographical (if only in the sense of him going Hrm. This could've happened to me.) and it becomes even more interesting.

I'm also a fan of what I've read of the Indian Vedas and of China's Romance of Three Kingdoms.