British vs French 19thc century lit rumble

[Cort Haus]

That's stories, not literature - just like Walter Scott.

Pratchett's not just about stories for goodness sake. How can you be saying this?

[Cort Haus]

and since when was Walter Scott funny?

[Cort Haus]

We'll be told the The Simpsons isn't at the pinnacle of High Art next!

[duke o' york]

Sorry, but do you really think that future students of literature will be studying Pratchett over, say Rushdie, in 200 years time? Maybe only as part of a trash lit module alongside Harry Potter and Zadie Smith, but not alongside Atwood and Ghosh.

[LDiCesare]

Both Ozymandias and El Desdichado quoted entirely here. I would have some taste then?

There are a few French authors I didn't see quoted who are worth mentioning:
Barbey d'Aurevilly (Les Diaboliques)
Marceline Desbordes-Valmore (several poems)
George Sand (a woman, as the name doesn't imply) her letter to Musset being particularly renowned. His answer, and then hers being nice too, but not as elaborate.
I saw Rimbaud was named, but was Verlaine?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by duke o' york
Sorry, but do you really think that future students of literature will be studying Pratchett over, say Rushdie, in 200 years time? Maybe only as part of a trash lit module alongside Harry Potter and Zadie Smith, but not alongside Atwood and Ghosh.

Possibly not, but only because the Literary Establishment has no sense of humour. In 200 years time there'll be as much to learn about us from Pratchett as from Rushdie, except that the former will make the students laugh more.

Pratchett isn't trash, it's satire-fantasy for adults, whereas Potter is a kids story read by adults. Is CS Lewis trash?

Have you read the recent stuff like Thief of Time & Night Watch?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wile it isn't trash, it isn't literature either, Cort. And I'm the biggest Potter fan around here. There is a difference between literature and just fiction.

[duke o' york]

Yes, CS Lewis is trash. It's only interesting for the heavy Christian overtones, which were a major feature of his work, and the way in which this can be considered within the children's literature of the time. Would you consider Enid Blyton and Beatrix Potter as worthy of study as Dickens? Well they all have their own sides to each story - particularly Blyton, with her exceptionally strong female characters.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by duke o' york
And why anyone would want to mention Stevenson twice is beyond me.

Because when it came to plot-driven novels, he was the master. His characters will still resond long after other works are forgotten, and his psychological dramas such as "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" were ground-breaking.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You believe you can impress La France Eternelle with your amusing three-hit combo?

Just to entertain you by responding to your little jabs, here's Théophile Gautier, Lamartine and de Vigny!

Who? Who? And, moreover, who?

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, CS Lewis is trash. It's only interesting for the heavy Christian overtones, which were a major feature of his work, and the way in which this can be considered within the children's literature of the time.

CS Lewis will be better remembered for his contributions to literature than Margaret Atwood. People talk about Atwood, but they read CS Lewis.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, and kudos to molly for William Blake. What an oversight.

[Cort Haus]

The Oxford Dictionary defines Literature as

"written works, esp those whose value lies in the beauty of language or in emotional effects"

Genuinely comic writers like Wodehouse, D. Adams and Pratchett not only succeed in both of these departments but excel and surpass because they play with language and metaphor to produce sheer joy - at least to people with a sense of humour. Even philosophically they outstrip turgid and depressive hacks like Hardy, whose dour ramblings inspire about as much as a wet thursday night in Grimsby.

Comparing Pratchett to first Walter Scott, then Potter, then Noddy goes to Toytown and Jemimah bloody Puddleduck could only be done by someone who hasn't got the joke.

Of course, to the self-proclaimed guardians of High Art, anything the grubby oiks enjoy reading cannot possibly be considered literature.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Check the first post - non-fiction essays count ONLY if they are primarily known for their literary style. I think that would exclude Darwin, Mill and Ricardo. Ruskin probably borderline.

Both Darwin and Ruskin are used as illustrative examples of evolving Victorian prose styles in the teaching of 19th Century English literature at university level.

That the importance of Darwin and Mill's ideas in the wider world outside English literature outstrip the fame of their styles of writing is hardly surprising.

Ruskin's style is justly famed:

...and wrote some of the most superb prose in the English language.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ru/Ruskin-J.html

In any case, their places could be (spookily) taken by

J Sheridan Le Fanu

Arthur Machen

and M. R. James

with Hazlitt and Olive Schreiner and William Cobbett lurking in the background too.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Who? Who? And, moreover, who?

Was that an argument? I mean, who would emphasize on his ignorance in order to prove his cultural superiority?

Oh, that's right, you're British. Never mind then.


However, even though you're entertaining like that, I have to help you out of the limbo of ignorance. Here, educate yourself:
Théophile Gautier
Alphonse de Lamartine
Alfred de Vigny