I have to take a literature sequence, and I'd rather take English lit than American, personal perference.
There are about 16 sections for American, and only four English lit classes to choose from. And none of them are in the right time slot for me.
Grrr....
Is there some bias against English lit that I don't know about? Do people think American is easier?
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
I've always much preferred English to American... but I may be an unfair example, as I'm not specifically American myself.
But still!
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I can't speak for general trends, but as for personal preferences, give me English literature over American literature any day of the week (with a few notable exceptions). I honestly couldn't give you a good reason off the top of my head.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
If you're in America, the focus is going to lean towards American Literature, I guess...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Whereas I'm the exact opposite. With over 3000 years to draw from, the English managed to produce, like, a couple hundred books really worth reading. In 300 years, the Americans have matched that number.
It's not that I don't like some English lit, but rather that I find the vast majority of it overrated. Along the same line, though, I can't stand most early American lit; it wasn't until Americans started being less European -- and people like Longfellow finally started dying -- that American literature cleaned up its act.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
My school had many more English Lit classes than American Lit classes. Good thing. I hated Early American Lit. So BORING.
And 18th Century Lit, a required course, made me want to claw my eyes out.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
It's not so much the preferences of students as it is the preference of the teachers. Only a certain number of teachers are willing to teach either.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: With over 3000 years to draw from, the English managed to produce, like, a couple hundred books really worth reading. In 300 years, the Americans have matched that number.
...except that the novel didn't really start to exist at all until around the time that America was founded so the 3000 vs. 300 is a bit unfair to history...
...and prior to that are all sorts of bits of literature which are quite readable, but just not exactly "main-stream" lit in the familiar format that evolved in the 1700s...
If you go to an American university, you read more American novels (or literature), if you go to an English University, you read more English novels (or literature).
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
I preferred English lit myself, but I can understand where teachers might prefer a topic with a greater scope of local significance.
In my American Lit classes, the teachers loved to interject history and current events as a backdrop to the subject matter.
[ February 27, 2005, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Because we are in America and that's relevant, and contrary to popular belief, there are interesting American authors, with astounding letters and a more direct bearing on character and plot and prose and religion. And I'm not talking about Twain. I think that America is distinct enough from England to appreciate our unique language and cultural conventions and dignity through fiction, and not just read about the incongruities of a class system that did not take hold in America with the same vigor and guise.
It's hard for me to study British literature without the prose sounding affected in my ear, and nearly ridiculous in my mouth and alien to my thought, and I like Graham Greene and Noel Coward. And Doris Lessing clads social critique in a lovely english dress. But Barbara Kingsolver is a great writer, every inch of Jane Austen and twice as charming, and John Steinbeck cuts a nice American figure in a blunt comparison to Charles Dickens.
I've heard good things about Willa Cather and Booth Tarkington, and in general, I look forward to diving into American writers.
[ February 27, 2005, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I grew to dislike deconstructing and writing on books in high school. My AP class felt like a slaughterhouse. I felt like we sucked all that was good out of the books and left them useless hulks. No more of that for me. But if I had a preference, I'd still pick neither. I prefer Russian and Japanese literature, depending on the translations.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm surprised. I generally get something out of all highly-regarded literature, regardless of geographical or temporal origin (I just like saying that phrase). Some books I don't like, others I do. The different styles just... were different that's all!
I have to take a Canadian literature course to complete my English major, and although I don't consider Canadian literature to be overwhelmingly brilliant, there's the same about of good and bad as any place, and just a pinch of "Canadian"!
I stand in defence of all literature being different in style and topic, but all in all pretty much equal!
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
This sounds weird to say, but I always find that british authors are much better at making the language beautiful than either american or canadian authors. I tend to like english authors better even when what they're saying is not particularly interesting. I'm one of those persons who finds language interesting in and of itself.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Digging Holes,
I get the feeling that English writers expect more from the audience. There is a certain snobbery in the prose that's carried off with Godly authority, whereas American literature is expected to be accessible and common. There are classist implications. The English writer can reasonably expect that everyone in his audience is educated in a similar manner that writer is. Everyone in the audience is familiar with the same social conventions, and most important, if the reader is not familiar with the education or convention, then it's a shame on the reader, and the writer is not going to be bothered with elementary education or a tutorial in common manners.
English prose is confident and daring and relentless, and inefficient, and maybe Americans prose suffers as we are writing to a more diverse audience, or possibly a less educated one. There might even be something to be said for the fact that English prose is English. English does not feel as comfortable on my fingers or in my mouth. The language was not spoken artfully in my house, and my mother-tongue has the quality of a mysterious aunt. I still don't know which metaphors are safe, which are obscure, and which are cliche, as my English education was spotty to say the least. As of today, Kingsolver and Steinbeck and maybe Micheal Chabon have the greatest, clearest, folksiest and most dignified American voices in literature, to my ear. I think it's because they tax our basic education and build from there, and the hardest part for American writers is that they don't know what is unique in their linguistic style and what they can reasonably expect the reader to know. The three I mentioned above start out with exactly what I know, speaking right to me, not above or below me. That's a precious understanding. I don't know how they have attained such an insight into my mind. They may also be superior for no other reason than there are a shameful amount of American writers who don't read good fiction.
Americans inspire the same confidence in their plotting that the English do with their diction. Hunter S. Thompson and Tom Robbins are confident and daring and relentlessly American writers, the same can be said of Neil Stephenson, except that those three are American druggies and geeks, and it shows itself in their word choice, whereas the English are nose-in-the-air wordsmiths, daringly turning a phase but plotting with a shy quality.
That's my read. If I want to spice of my dialogue, I'm going to get a book of plays from Oscar Wilde or Noel Coward. Maybe if I'm desperate for an American, Joe Heller. If I'm looking for good paragraph to paragraph prose, Kingsolver. And when I want yarn, well, I'm never in the mood for pure yarn anymore, but I guess Stephen King. The problem with all of these writers is a lack of soul. And with all of the charm, I think it's a rare find to find a book with soul.
[ February 27, 2005, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
I think you make alot of unwarranted and false assumptions, but I don't feel like challenging them. I read what I like and I like what I read.
*shrug*
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Here is a second theory, but it's not nicer and much more offensive:
We are an Anglophile nation. People who take British Lit. instead of American lit. are the same class of people who, in California, will take French instead of Spanish. Usually it's the honors block or an upper crust, people who, despite that fact that spanish speakers are everywhere in California, have convinced themselves that French is somehow superior, out of some latent disrespect for the recent class of Spanish speaking immigrants. There are real reasons that people should take French instead of Spanish in high school, but the one that is most pervasive and doesn't get spoken aloud or even thought clearly is the idea that "French is grand and beautiful and Mexicans are poor and dirty."
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
*bigger shrug*
I'm Canadian.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:contrary to popular belief, there are interesting American authors, with astounding letters and a more direct bearing on character and plot and prose and religion.
There are, certainly. But most of them are more modern.
If I could take the courses out of sequence, I'd do English Lit 1, which goes from Beowulf to the neoclassical period, and I'd take American Lit 2 - the more modern American authors from Twain forward. But I can't do that, I am required to take them in sequence. And early American literature is, like mack said, very boring.
I don't think I can stomach any Nathaniel Hawthorne. :shudder:
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, Hawthorne's short stories redeem him. His novels suck, but his short fiction is really very good.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Irami, definately check out Willa Cather. I recently finished "My Antonia" and thought it was a very lovely book.
space opera
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Make a game out of it, Belle, since you're stuck with the inevitable. Tear the works apart and have fun with it, while you're at it - really - Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: People who take British Lit. instead of American lit. are the same class of people who, in California, will take French instead of Spanish. Usually it's the honors block or an upper crust, people who, despite that fact that spanish speakers are everywhere in California, have convinced themselves that French is somehow superior, out of some latent disrespect for the recent class of Spanish speaking immigrants. There are real reasons that people should take French instead of Spanish in high school, but the one that is most pervasive and doesn't get spoken aloud or even thought clearly is the idea that "French is grand and beautiful and Mexicans are poor and dirt
Of course, it could never be that they just enjoy British literature more than American literature. Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Really, Irami?
'Cause I took German over Spanish 'cause I wanted to travel to Germany on our language class trip Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I had to put up with condescending attitudes like that a lot when I took French. I moved here to MA from MI, and a lot of people here had quite an attitude about it, to be honest, as if they had some sort of right to expect me to learn Spanish so that I could communicate with Spanish speakers here in the US.
Never mind that there was a whole country of people across the Detroit river who spoke French, and never mind the fact that in 1986, when I had to take French, I didn't know many people who spoke Spanish....at least not personally.
People had the nerve to tell me that I should have learned something more practical..not once or twice, but many times over a time span of 3 years.
My parents grew up poor, and we had nothing when I was younger, so be careful what you assume about my background.
They just made assumptions...like you just did, Irami....and we all know what happens when you do that.
I wanted to see Europe, and my mother had taken French in high school, and I remember her talking about that and teaching me a bit of while I was in elementary school. My uncle is buried over there, and Spanish conflicted with band in high school.
It really was as simple as that.
But of course, I MUST be a bigot, that is why I choose to learn a language like French.
If you go into a discussion like this with an expectation to find ignorance and bigotry, don't be surprised if you see it everywhere. In reality it isn't everywhere...it is merely a reflection of your own attitudes and beliefs that you see a lot of the time.
Assumptions tend to do that.
[ February 28, 2005, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
What, no Australian Lit courses?
It is quite interesting the difference when you think about it. Australian literature tends to be very linked with the land - the bush, the ocean and the sky all feature in the works of Tim Winton, David Malouf and others.
Even the fantasy/spec fic writers tend to bring it back to a distinctly Australian backdrop: Sean Williams especially so.
I'm not sure I'd agree British writers are necessarily more snobby or their writing is less accessible. IMO Patrick Gale is one of the best British writers writing and his books are very accessible.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
In Irami's defense, he DID specify California in his remarks. He didn't say that there was not reason to take French, and he said nothing about people studying near the French Canadian border. He also didn't exclude the possibility of people studying a specific language because they wanted to travel.
In the "in general" sense in which it was stated, I think Irami might have a point.
As an aside, I studied Spanish because I hoped to be sent on my LDS mission to South America. Ironically, I got my mission call to Brazil. (Portuguese speakers, for those not in the know.) Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Yikes, American Lit at JSU. That was the absolute worst class I ever had to take at that University. The teacher was so boring (an older woman- forget her name).
At one point, after reading the Legend of Sleepy Hollow, she had the class get into groups and, with colored chalk and art paper, draw a scene from the book.
In a university Litereature class we were drawing pictures from the book.
She asked lame questions, nobody answered (except me, occasionally), she knew no ones name and wasn't interested in it. There was no desire to discuss literature (as we did in my HIGH SCHOOL Am lit class).
Terrible.
Avoid it if you can.
[ February 28, 2005, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: IanO ]
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I took French because I love the language. I took both Brit lit and American lit cause they were in the curriculum. I preferred (and still prefer) British literature to American literature because that's what I like, not out of any "oh, I'm better than everyone" style snobbery.
People think the same thing about people who listen to "classical" music.
"Oh, well, aren't you the pretentious hoity-toity snob?"
"No, I just. like. it."
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Imogen who was the newspaper journalist/poet that wrote Waltzing Matilda and The Man from Snowy River? They had a feature on him in National Geographic a while back and I thought his poetry, though not strictly "literature", was lovely.
AJ
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
American Lit has some great stuff. You should try Hope Leslie by Catherine Sedgwick and Ruth Hall by Fanny Fern. Fanny Fern is as funny as and was more popular than Mark Twain, and she deserved to be.
I like literature from both places, but I think the answer as to why there are more American Lit classes than English is that we do actually live in America. It's good to know other cultures, but to be ignorant of your own is shameful. I can see why they'd teach more classes of the native culture.
[ February 28, 2005, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Does Ernest Hemingway count as American?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I have to add that all the Australian novels (all science fiction/fantasy but now I'm inspired to read more!) have been excellent.
Also quite a few authors do not write or live in their country of origin, or have lived a significant number of years outside...
Gertrude Stein and Hemingway both lived and wrote in France, but are considered American Writers.
Vladimir Nabokov moved to and wrote in America, but learnt his craft in Russia. What does that make him?
Also, I think when comparing "British" and "American" writers, we have to make sure the books we are reading are from approximately the same time- comparing Dickens and Hemingway, for example, is impossible. Samuel Beckett, whose language is much more comparable with Hemingway, is a contemporary.
[ February 28, 2005, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I was totally surprised that this turned out to be about English Lit vs. American Lit. I thought it was about literature generally, since I wouldn't really draw a distinction between English Lit and American Lit. I mean, I took English lit in college and it was both. But maybe it was actually called Introductory Literature. I wouldn't say English Literature has been around longer than American Literature, at least in terms of the novel. I guess where poetry is concerned you may have a point. The American culture is different but when it comes to the language I think of England and American as being at least the same as the various parts of Great Britain. I mean, would you consider Rudyard Kipling part of English lit or colonial Lit?
Anyway, I like Jane Austen okay, but I'm partial to translated Russian literature.
Posted by sexy_aaron (Member # 7312) on :
I study Canadian Lit.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, it looks like I won't be taking American or English lit at JSU.
I did some re-thinking, and drove out to the campus and studied all the requirements and it appears I'll be better off going to UAB.
I wanted to go to JSU mainly because it's a better teacher's college, but my previous course work lines up better with an admission to UAB's teacher program, plus it's a lot closer, half the drive, and with an enormous gas guzzler I'm driving now, it will make a difference.
So...I'm now sending all my transcripts to UAB, but there's no worry there, I applied there a year ago and was accepted so I don't have to sweat whether or not I'll get in.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
adam613, I'm interpreting that as the fact that you don't like Jane Austen. My answer to that is some books are liked more by women than men and I think Jane Austen falls into that category. I'm not saying men can't like Jane Austen, or that women must, only that this is a novel that leans more towards the sensibilities of women than men.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I love Jane Austen. I find it charming and witty and subtle.
[ February 28, 2005, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Megan ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
That's what the disclaimer in my previous post is for, Megan . I know manby men like JA, and many women dispise it, but in general I think the oppsoite is more true.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Oh, I know...I was mostly responding to adam, and mainly just being flippant. Feel free to disregard, and please assume no implied criticism. Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: With over 3000 years to draw from, the English managed to produce, like, a couple hundred books really worth reading. In 300 years, the Americans have matched that number.
It's one thing for you, Tom - as an American - to speak using the word "like". But writing it? You truly amaze me daily.
(And forgive my vulgarity, or my sounding like Gandalf, hobbit.)
JH
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Belle, how'd you guys make out with fixing the van? I've been wondering.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
I think he's being folksy.
[ February 28, 2005, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
mack we didn't fix it. We bought a new one.
We got a used GMC Safari, 2004, 18,000 miles on it.
It runs great, but it uses more gas than my Montana did.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Irami said that anyone studing anything other than Spanish is doing so out of a prejudice against spanish culture in the USA, and he mentions California as an example of that. I don't think that every person who chooses to study French or German, or any language other than Spanish, is a bigot who feels that spanish culture(or rather spanish/american culture) is inferior and not worth studying.
I was not commenting on things in MI, I was talking about the insufferable attitude of people here in New England who tried to take me to task when they found out that I took French over Spanish.
I have read a lot of American Lit and Brittish Lit, and I like a lot of both....but I prefer American Lit.
But I chose French as my second language requirement.
Predjuce ins't present only in whites, you know, and I figured that it was about time I mentioned it. I am a person first, and white second (if it is even that high)....and while my race definatly colors my perception, it isn't the only thing that does......it isn't the main thing that does, to be honest.
Not every choice a person makes is because he disrespects anothers race or culture.
Kwea
[ February 28, 2005, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
I'm not all that interested in American Lit. I had a professor who looked like she would crumple into dust with a stiff breeze who made that class boring and laughable. I plodded through Twain, Steinbeck, and others who are considered to be Literary Greats.....I couldn't get into the writing. I prefer English Lit. I have also taken Spanish Lit. (classes conducted entirely in Spanish) and some of the Spanish writers were excellent....others I had to plod through. I made my way through Dickens and Chaucer and was tempted to tape my eyelids up to finish each chapter. I love Jane Austen. Two of my favorite books are "Pride and Prejudice" and "Persuasion". If that makes me a snob I am sorry. I also took French in Junior High and High School (along with Italian and German). The reason being...my older sister took Spanish and I didn't want to take anything that she would take. (My college major, by the way, is Spanish.) My minor is Japanese. I speak American Sign Language, some Russian, and a smidgen of Greek, Malaysian, Chinese, and Gaelic. I have read Russian, English, French, Italian,Spanish, and American lit, as well as some Japanese poetry and legends. I still like English lit the most. It is a personal preference and has no basis what so ever in my socio - economic/racial background. I am in no way prejudiced against American Lit. because I am a white woman who can speak and read French, I just don't personally like it as much as English Lit. and English authors. Find me a book that I like, and I could care less where the author is from! Find me a book that I don't like... and I could still care less where the author is from!
[ February 28, 2005, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: JenniK ]
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'm going to take a virtual English Literature class if that counts for anything. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
AJ - that would be Andrew 'Banjo' Paterson.
His style is what is commonly referred to as bush poetry - copied by many (some half decent) and still recited at many a bush dance.
My favourite is Mulga Bill's Bicycle, which has been published as a *fantastic* kids picture book.
quote:'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze; He turned away the good old horse that served him many days; He dressed himself in cycling clothes, resplendent to be seen; He hurried off to town and bought a shining new machine; And as he wheeled it through the door, with air of lordly pride, The grinning shop assistant said, "Excuse me, can you ride?"
"See here, young man," said Mulga Bill, "from Walgett to the sea, From Conroy's Gap to Castlereagh, there's none can ride like me. I'm good all round at everything as everybody knows, Although I'm not the one to talk -- I hate a man that blows.
But riding is my special gift, my chiefest, sole delight; Just ask a wild duck can it swim, a wildcat can it fight. There's nothing clothed in hair or hide, or built of flesh or steel, There's nothing walks or jumps, or runs, on axle, hoof, or wheel, But what I'll sit, while hide will hold and girths and straps are tight: I'll ride this here two-wheeled concern right straight away at sight."
'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that sought his own abode, That perched above Dead Man's Creek, beside the mountain road. He turned the cycle down the hill and mounted for the fray, But 'ere he'd gone a dozen yards it bolted clean away. It left the track, and through the trees, just like a silver steak, It whistled down the awful slope towards the Dead Man's Creek.
It shaved a stump by half an inch, it dodged a big white-box: The very wallaroos in fright went scrambling up the rocks, The wombats hiding in their caves dug deeper underground, As Mulga Bill, as white as chalk, sat tight to every bound. It struck a stone and gave a spring that cleared a fallen tree, It raced beside a precipice as close as close could be; And then as Mulga Bill let out one last despairing shriek It made a leap of twenty feet into the Dead Man's Creek.
'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that slowly swam ashore: He said, "I've had some narrer shaves and lively rides before; I've rode a wild bull round a yard to win a five-pound bet, But this was the most awful ride that I've encountered yet. I'll give that two-wheeled outlaw best; it's shaken all my nerve To feel it whistle through the air and plunge and buck and swerve. It's safe at rest in Dead Man's Creek -- we'll leave it lying still; A horse's back is good enough henceforth for Mulga Bill."
[ March 01, 2005, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
That sounds kind of like cowboy poetry - which I really enjoy. It's often poignant, sweet, sad, corny, and joking, with recognizable rhyme structure and honest, true characters. Very fun.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)