Thomas Hardy

Actually, he does have a point, Steve. We are so used to thinking of the US as an ex-British colony that we tend to forget that more of it was French and Spanish than was ever British -- the British-controlled region was mostly just the east coast. Hell, if you include Alaska, more of it was Russian!

Add to that the fact that the majority of Americans are not British by ancestry, and you can see that, while for a great many reasons the English language ended up dominating all others, for most Americans it is an accident of history that we speak English and not some other language. This is one of the factors that has led to our ambivalent relationship with the rest of the English-speaking world. (Not just that little incident that started with the tea...)

<<That definitely explains why I despised "Pride and Prejudice". A whole book about people whose greatest horror in life was being faced with the prospect of (gasp!) having to WORK for a living!>>

The biggest question is who actually does like Jane Austen- I agree with you! The idea that people of the same nationality have similar interests or senses of humour is bullshit. I have friends from all around the world who have more similar interests and senses of humour to me than many of my neighbours.

I'm sitting here writing about one of my interests to a group of people anywhere between twelve and twelve thousand miles away, yet if I spoke to my neighbour about any of the subjects on this forum the only response I would get would be a yawn!

Of course people have different interests...it would be weird if all tastes and likes and dislikes were the same with everybody! I studied English at uni but no way would I discuss all related topics with most of my friends....I have many other diversions as well.

I will respond to previous posts in this thread when I have more time.....even with an extra hour to the day I have to be elsewhere right now. But this particular thread is very interesting I think.

With regard to Jane Austen - in answer to the "biggest question as to who does actually like her" : plenty of people, it seems. True, her novels are far and away more popular with women, not only because they were written by a woman, and a woman from a particular background and class, but also because the general theme of all her books is one that appeals more to women.

There are Jane Austen socities all over the world with very active membership levels as I discovered. The JA Society in the United States is particularly active, and I know that when I went with a party from uni on a trip down to Hampshire to visit the author's home at Chawton, and we stayed the night at Winchester, where she died in 1817, both places were full of Americans all there for one purpose it seemd.

USA:

http://www.jasna.org/

UK:
http://www.janeaustensoci.freeuk.com/

Australia:
http://www.jasa.net.au/

As for the guy this thread is dedicated to, Thomas Hardy's novels are more likely to appeal to men because of their earthiness I reckon. Thomas Hardy websites proliferate throughout the world as well, even in Japan.

All these novels relate to society in long gone eras so it's not possible to feel nostalgia for a time and place of which nobody alive today has any personal experience. Society today is a zillion light years away om then but that does not mean it's not posible to read about them and enjoy the process. It is part of cultural development in my opinion, and the style of English used by the authors oncerned adds even more to the learning process.

One author specialised in upwardly mobility and the social climbing gentility of a certain sector of Society. The other the down to earth life of an essentially rural background, with all the same loves, hates, jealousies, happiness, sadness, joy and tragedies common to both..... but presented in different ways.

>>Travis says that his area of the US is

"is not simply an "outpost of Anglo-Saxon civilization",a place where English just happened to serve as a lingua franca, which just happened to then replace all the other languages in the area"

Just happened? Travis, how is it possible to spew so much ignorant twaddle. Are you in high school yet? Have you read any history?<<

So why in fucking hell is my parents' generation (as for my parents, this applies to both of them) here the *first* generation here which could, for the most part, only speak English (I say for the most part, considering that even in their cases, I know that my dad's oldest brother can speak German (albeit for work), and my mom's oldest brother at least knows some Polish)? And my family does not appear to be an anomaly, considering that this also applies to, for example, my girlfriend's mother's side (her maternal grandmother's first language is German, albeit extremely rusty today), and that some Catholic churches here still up to this day hold masses in Polish, and there are problems, at times, in nursing homes here where older people with Alzheimer's will stop being able to speak English, and will be left being able to only speak a first language of theirs which is not it.

>>Do you know anything about American literature? What language was it written in? What books did American writers all read?<<

Did you read what I just said? I was not talking about American literature, I was talking about the languages used historically right *here* by the general population in southeastern/southern Wisconsin, and the fact that the dominance of English here is actually very new, all things considered. Considering that there are people still alive (such as my parents, who're not particularly old at all) who distinctly remember significant levels of use of languages other than English, even though they themselves were raised as English-speakers, one cannot really dismiss this kind of thing as being irrelevant, on a local level at least. Considering that English happened to become the single language here practically only yesterday, so to speak, it is sort of hard to say that things here are simply some kind of extension of English culture and whatnot.

<<Heh - most Americans wouldn't have the least clue about Wessex, much the less 19th century rural Wessex. >>

What does that have to do with enjoyment of literature? Nothing.

<<The biggest question is who actually does like Jane Austen->>

I do, and so do literally millions of other people. As Damian says, some of them are American. I was in Winchester some years ago (where Austen lived for a while) and met an American woman, crying with emotion at coming face to face (as it were) with a place so strongly associated with her 'heroine'.

For me the fun of reading old literature is not to see how much things have changed but, in many cases, how little they have changed.

This piece from the Chaucer's "Miller's Tale" wouldn't be out of place in a Carry On film even though it's over 600 years old:

Have done," said she, "come on, and do it fast,
Before we're seen by any neighbour's eye."
This Absalom did wipe his mouth all dry;
Dark was the night as pitch, aye dark as coal,
And through the window she put out her hole.
And Absalom no better felt nor worse,
But with his mouth he kissed her naked arse
Right greedily, before he knew of this.
Aback he leapt- it seemed somehow amiss,
For well he knew a woman has no beard;
He'd felt a thing all rough and longish haired,
And said, "Oh fie, alas! What did I do?"
"Teehee!" she laughed, and clapped the, window to;


Have do," quod she, "com of, and speed the faste,
Lest that oure neighebores thee espie."
This Absolon gan wype his mouth ful drie.
Derk was the nyght as pich, or as a cole,
And at the wyndow out she putte hir hole,
And Absolon, hym fil no bet ne wers,
But with his mouth he kiste hir naked ers
Ful savorly, er he were war of this.
Abak he stirte, and thoughte it was amys,
For wel he wiste a womman hath no berd.
He felte a thyng al rough and long yherd,
And seyde, "Fy! allas! what have I do?"
"Tehee!" quod she, and clapte the wyndow to

Likewise, for all those English people today who think they are cultured by eating pasta and rejecting what they see as boring traditional English foodstuffs, here is just one of many 14th Century English recipes for pasta:

Ravioles, more commonly known today under its Italian name Ravioli

Take wete chese and grynde hit smal, & medle hit wyt eyren & saffron and a god quantite of buttur. Make a thin foile of dowe & close hem þerin as turteletes, & cast hem in boylyng watur, & sethe hem þerin. Take hot burrur meltede & chese ygratede, & ley þi ravioles in dissches; & ley þi hote buttur wyt gratede chese bineþe & aboue, & cast þereon powdur douce.

Speaking for myself, one American, I feel closely connected with English literature. I consider it part of my own individual culture (of course, I say this about literature in some foreign languages too). To appreciate fiction at all, we usually need to empathize with persons who live under different circumstances. Once a book helps us do that, it becomes part of our individual culture, and the various aspects of life that we experienced in it begin to seem less alien.

As for Pride and Prejudice, I confess that I didn't get around to reading it until I was about thirty. There was a good bit of both pride and prejudice in my own character that kept me from reading it. I was prejudiced against Austen as someone who wrote about women in drawing rooms and about the frills and conventionalities of British society. I figured that such a book would be too sissy for me. Also when I was young, I prided myself on being a reader of deep books. I wasn't willing to stoop so low as to read a silly book about old-fashioned courting customs. I was too proud to occupy myself with anything that I thought superficial.

Well, I'm glad that in an idle moment I finally gave the book a try. I was surprised at how much I liked it. I went on to read every novel that Austen ever wrote, one after another over a period of several weeks.

Austen is a skillful satirist of the foibles of ordinary human beings, has wit, and can tell a good love story. Those are worthy achievements for any writer. Does she deal with trivialities? Well, sometimes, and she makes fun of them. But mostly her protagonists are preoccupied with love, economics, and honor -- three fundamental human concerns. The conditions under which her protagonists pursue them are rather different from mine, but I still had no trouble identifying with them.

Rick, some things are just universal and stand the test of time all too well!

It's strange the things that resonate with people of very different cultures -- I read that Prince Edward island in Canada is a hot destination for young Japanese women who fell in love with Anne of Green Gables, which was set there around the turn of the 19th/20th centuries. (!)

Travis,

People who emigrated to the United States emigrated to an English speaking country. They did not just happen to learn English, it was inevitable that they would, if not in the first generation, then in the second.

Of all the elements of culture, language is perhaps the one that most clearly defines us. Once you are a part of the English language world (no need to call it Anglo-Saxon), speaking English as your first language, then all the history and literature of English becomes part of your patrimony. It pervades, directly and indirectly everything you read in that language even if you do not like Wordsworth or Hardy.

I have read more novels in French than in English, prefer Balzac to Hardy. Yet I am part of the English speaking world. It is the language the I speak the most easily. It defines me.

Of course the local culture, daily living style etc. of North Americans is different from that of people in the UK, or Australians or Jamaicans for that matter. and there are local cultures. Still the literature of that language forms a part of their culture, even if they cannot read.

>>Travis,

People who emigrated to the United States emigrated to an English speaking country. They did not just happen to learn English, it was inevitable that they would, if not in the first generation, then in the second.<<

That does not mean, though, that the culture necessarily just becomes an extension of English culture. Just because the other languages spoken have ended up being replaced by English does not make the overall culture English per se in and of itself.

>>Of all the elements of culture, language is perhaps the one that most clearly defines us. Once you are a part of the English language world (no need to call it Anglo-Saxon), speaking English as your first language, then all the history and literature of English becomes part of your patrimony. It pervades, directly and indirectly everything you read in that language even if you do not like Wordsworth or Hardy.<<

You're missing the point of why I was saying this in the first place, which was that I was pointing out that British people simply cannot assume that English-speaking North America, and in particular the US, and at that in particular areas of the US settled relatively recently by immigrants from places other than the UK, is simply a cultural extension of the UK. Most people here, while they very well would be able to read English literature, if they chose, still have little no attachment to the actual English culture besides such, which is quite alien to most here, who probably have a rather distorted view of it (for example, thinking that most English people actually speak like a certain actor who shall remain unnamed).

For example, with Hardy, most people here would not be able to relate to what he describes; most people here probably have little clue of what rural life in the 19th century in Wessex would have been like at all in the first place. Likewise, with our example of Pride and Prejudice, the world which it depicts is one that is likely quite alien to most people here (c.f. Uriel's comments on such), despite it being another English-speaking culture. One cannot assume that just because England speaks the same language as people here that people here really have any real clue about life in England (the actor who shall remain unnamed doesn't count), or that they can relate to such in any kind of manner more specific than just general universals, for which it really doesn't matter what culture is being depicted in a piece of literature.

>>I have read more novels in French than in English, prefer Balzac to Hardy. Yet I am part of the English speaking world. It is the language the I speak the most easily. It defines me.<<

I speak English because I was raised as speaking it and live in a community which now today exclusively speaks it, older people notwithstanding. I do not feel defined by it, or that it really matters at all that it is English, rather than some other language. Similarly, I don't look towards a certain island on one side of the North Sea for overall cultural orientation, even though I happen to speak the same language as is spoken in much of said island.

>>Of course the local culture, daily living style etc. of North Americans is different from that of people in the UK, or Australians or Jamaicans for that matter. and there are local cultures. Still the literature of that language forms a part of their culture, even if they cannot read.<<

Yes, but literature alone does not a single unified culture make.

<<For example, with Hardy, most people here would not be able to relate to what he describes; most people here probably have little clue of what rural life in the 19th century in Wessex would have been like at all in the first place. Likewise, with our example of Pride and Prejudice, the world which it depicts is one that is likely quite alien to most people here>>

But the England depicted in these 19th-century novels, and now disappeared, is just as alien to modern English people as it is to Americans, Travis. I don't see why this affects people's ability to 'relate' to literature. Do you mean that people can only enjoy reading about things that they know? Surely one of the joys of reading fiction is discovering other worlds, customs, mores? I enjoy reading modern South African fiction, although I have no connections or 'attachment' to the country and it's 'alien' to me for the most part, although the literature is often in English in the original.

>><<For example, with Hardy, most people here would not be able to relate to what he describes; most people here probably have little clue of what rural life in the 19th century in Wessex would have been like at all in the first place. Likewise, with our example of Pride and Prejudice, the world which it depicts is one that is likely quite alien to most people here>>

But the England depicted in these 19th-century novels, and now disappeared, is just as alien to modern English people as it is to Americans, Travis. I don't see why this affects people's ability to 'relate' to literature. Do you mean that people can only enjoy reading about things that they know? Surely one of the joys of reading fiction is discovering other worlds, customs, mores? I enjoy reading modern South African fiction, although I have no connections or 'attachment' to the country and it's 'alien' to me for the most part, although the literature is often in English in the original.<<

I simply meant that it is just as foreign to people here as if the setting were, let's say, in some non-English-speaking area of Europe. Just because there is a shared language, in this case, does not mean that such is any less foreign.

As for the part about it being inherently alien, to British people today as well as to Americans, due to the setting with respect to time, yes, that is true. Actually, one thing is that many Americans are probably more accustomed to the UK of early to mid-twentieth century than the UK today, the views of which most get are probably not really representative of life there today, and which are likely quite anachronistic in reality (c.f. the discussion about "four o'clock tea").

Thomas Hardy was funny, but personally I'll always prefer Stan Laurel.

"Actually, he does have a point, Steve. We are so used to thinking of the US as an ex-British colony that we tend to forget that more of it was French and Spanish than was ever British -- the British-controlled region was mostly just the east coast. Hell, if you include Alaska, more of it was Russian!

Add to that the fact that the majority of Americans are not British by ancestry, and you can see that, while for a great many reasons the English language ended up dominating all others, for most Americans it is an accident of history that we speak English and not some other language. This is one of the factors that has led to our ambivalent relationship with the rest of the English-speaking world. (Not just that little incident that started with the tea...) "

It was the British who the Americans fought against to get their independence, most of the other states being gained after Americans moved westwards after they gained their "independence."

I say "independence" because the US (as well as Canada, Australia, etc) are STILL British colonies. The British Empire is still very much alive and well, only we know it as "the British Commonwealth."

And the British own nearly all of America's media.