British vs French 19thc century lit rumble

[Sandman]

He's dragging down the British side with his mistakes, too.

edit: referring to the settler

[duke o' york]

I agree totally Sandman.

Scott was the Mills & Boon of the 19th century - absolute tripe!

Guy de Maupassant - novels weren't great, but the short stories are wonderful.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by duke o' york
I am particularly fond of Thomas Hardy, apart from his first published novel, Desperate Remedies, which is utter bilge. The later works are best, where the world always crushes the heroes/heroines, and although I am not fond of it either, I have to admit that Under the Greenwood Tree is a good example of its genre. As I said, the later stuff is better, but I'm creeping too close to the 20th century here.

However, I'm not patriotic in the least, so have to admit that Zola pwns all.
I particularly like La Bete Humaine (sorry, can't work out how to include accents on my laptop ), Germinal and La Terre. I'm currently reading Au Bonheur des Dames, and have already got the good feeling that everything's going to go tits up for the heroes (see above).

To bring things on a level, I'll name Lady Audley's Secret by Mary Elizabeth Braddon. Nobody who has read this (or been forced to as part of their English & French degree) can deny that it is at least +10 to the French.

Hardy - i read Jude the Obscure, and saw the movie "Tess". Im not sure which side of 1900 these were written though.


Germinal - I dont know, I seem to recall it being a tad pedestrian. But then we've got Kipling here, and Germinal WAS a good read, I guess.

[Sandman]

Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, better known as Lewis Carroll.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
He's dragging down the British side with his mistakes, too.

edit: referring to the settler

I dont know, I think Stevenson and Kipling are inevitable. And Scott, who may not look so good now, but was a huge seller at the time.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Richelieu
Edmond Rostand.

French, I take it?

[lord of the mark]

another brit lady

Jane Austen - Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, etc

[ahasverus]

ivanhoe -1819
The timemachine -1896
stevenson is sure
kipling, the jungle book 1894
what mistakes?

[duke o' york]

Jude the Obscure was first published in 1895, so all of his major works make it into the right century. I'm sorry, but I somehow lost the link I copied to a Hardy chronology.
The Dynasts isn't very good, but that's the wrong side of 1900.

[Sandman]

It's Sir Walter, not William Scott.

[ahasverus]

sorry i see my bad

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
It's Sir Walter, not William Scott.

yeah but william scott is in "Dukes of Hazzard", and Sir Walter certainly isnt.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

French, I take it?

Of course: Rostand is best known for Cyrano.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by nostromo
Charles Baudelaire.

I match you with Keats, then raise you a Byron and a Percy Bysshe Shelley.

When it came to doomed young romantic poets, the Brit Pack made the French look like a bunch of eunuchs.

[duke o' york]

Oh, and I was under the impression that William could (almost) actually write, and his brother Walter took all the glory because he was mopre photogenic.

You know, like Marlowe/Jonson/Bacon/Earl of Essex wrote the Shakespeare plays.