Thomas Hardy

Poor old Thomas Hardy must be a wee bit dowie looking down from his heavenly abode! A thread was dedicated to HIM but look what's happened! The guy's been pushed aside...and all his literary works and unique usage of 19th century rustic English along with him.

Wessex is still considered a region of South Central/South West England....with Hardy's dearly loved Dorset at it's heart. The name Wessex appears in so many local connections down Dorset/Hampshire/Wiltshire way.

The Queen's youngest son Edward and his wife Sophie are known as the Count and Countess of Wessex. Literally, "Wessex" means the people of the West; Sussex means the people of the South; Essex means the people of the East...and Middlesex means what it says. :-)

Travis, if somebody says "the UK and Canada are practically all but satellite states of the US these days" without adding a smiley or any comment whatsoever, what the hell am I supposed to think? I can't read your mind, can I? I'm not saying you think American imperialism is a 'good thing'. I'm rejecting your statement about the UK altogether and still think your comments are crass, jingoistic and rather offensive.

You just sound like lots of other ignorant Americans (NOT all of them, or even a majority!) who think that because many people in the world watch American films etc, we're all American now, or want to be. I took your comments at face value and I notice that you still haven't contradicted them. It's OK for you to say that the UK and its literature and culture is no more or less alien to you than other, non-English speaking countries. Well, the US, to most British people, is also 'alien' and 'different', regardless of how many crappy US sitcoms we might watch. The setting
of something like 'Friends' or whatever is no more familiar to me than a show set in a non-English speaking country. Most American humour is deeply unfunny to me, I don't understand or follow any of your sports, and I don't eat your food. With the exception of a few novels, American 'culture' is irrelevant to me and plays no role in my life whatsoever.

Have you ever even been to the UK? Do you really think that it's nothing more than a 'satellite state' of the US? If so, I'm really sorry for you and your pathetically limited world view.

A lot of the kneejerk anti-Americanism here in Europe - and occasionally displayed on this forum - is intensely irritating to me. I've never thought of myself as 'anti-American'. When I read this sort of stuff, however, I have to concede that a lot of Europeans have a valid point.

**They even manage to visit more ruins **

Do you mean those who went to Margaret Thatcher's 80th birthday party?

I feel wee tinges of guilt.....this thread has lost it's direction (ie subject matter Hardy has been dissed sort of) since I mentioned the cultural differences between Europe (which of course insludes the UK) and the United States. It would be stupid to even think that such differences don't exist....they do, as we all know.

There have been and still are great American writers and the strong American bias in their works naturally has more meaning and significance to Americans.

We have to remember that the United States is a very "young" country by European standards whereas Europeans have had centuries of culture in all its forms behind them. This was bound to have an affect on the people of this Continent (including the UK) with its huge mix of cultures and history handed down from each succeeding generation.

The new America developed as a country in its own right following Independence and made up of people drawn from paractically every country in the rest of the world with mass immigration surging ahead into the New World. The much vaunted melting pot. Gradually it developed its own character and style and due to the melting pot effect the American nation known today emerged.

Thousands of miles from Europe (from whence came many of the new migrants) cultures and styles took a separate path which accounts for the divergences we see today. Hence the reason we do not see eye to eye on so many things.....one's manner and style and general methods and procedures is not the same as another's. What seems to make Americans laugh leaves many Brits impassive. What makes Britons fall about leaves many Americans bemused instead of amused.

There is a general overall European (including the UK) mindset and there is an American mindset.

Going back to poor old Thomas.......it's natural I reckon to think that his novels have less appeal for Americans than it does for many of us on this side of the Puddle simply because much of the background and lifestyles etc are simply alien. That's understandable. Mark Twain has never been flavour of the month over on this side.

The same aplies to most of the other classical British classical writers. As has been said, many Americans are of European origin so it would ne natural to assume they would find appeal in the writings of authors from their forefather's homelands. Or maybe not. They have probably become submerged into the great All American Dream in which anything outside that is of little or no consequence in comparison.

Someone, somewhere in this message thread wrote:

What a shame that the original poster's intention of discussing great literature has to degenerate into this unbelievably stupid, crass, jingoistic, 'the US is so great and superior' bullshit within 3 pages. Nice one, Travis.<<

Travis, or whoever wrote the above comment, has a point. I have very serious reservations about ever posting anything again on this forum (or on any other forum for that matter). Although many of the respondents brought up some very interesting points, most of these points would have been more appropriate as part of a different thread. Although this book HAS been published in the UK, in the US, and in Canada, I was hoping to talk more about the actual plot of the book, the characters, and eighteenth or nineteenth century rural sothwest England in general (its manners, customs, traditions, and speech).

I am now up to the part where Tess has departed from Trantridge (realising that Alec d'Urberville is just a playboy out for a good time - something she suspected from the very beginning). Actually, she was never in love with him. She just wanted to befriend the old and very eccentric Mrs. d'Urberville because her mother forced her to.

The author goes so far as to suggest that Tess's peasant male ancestors may have treated women of their day even more roughly than Alec treated her. He adds, however, that although the philosophy of "the sins of the fathers shall be visited on the children" may sound nice to the ears of divinities, it is harsh and unfair to ordinary humans living in the real world.

However, I can see that this is not the place for a philosophic discussion...

http://www.langcafe.net

Guest99, it was me who wrote the above (jingoistic thing), responding to Travis. I, for one, thought your idea for this thread was excellent. I would have responded more, but unfortunately I'm not too familiar with Hardy's works. I'm sorry your thread has been hijacked by someone who only wants to spout about the irrelevance of English culture to their lives, and who seems to believe that only literature set in their own time and space could ever be worth reading. Great literature is universal - it doesn't matter if it's set in rural Wessex, Kenya or outer space.

I hope there are forums for you to continue to discuss literature, and I'm sorry that you have reservations about posting here again (although I understand completely). Hope also we haven't lost you forever! :)

>>Travis, if somebody says "the UK and Canada are practically all but satellite states of the US these days" without adding a smiley or any comment whatsoever, what the hell am I supposed to think? I can't read your mind, can I? I'm not saying you think American imperialism is a 'good thing'. I'm rejecting your statement about the UK altogether and still think your comments are crass, jingoistic and rather offensive.<<

I didn't add a smiley to it because I was being serious when I said that. As for the "crass, jingoistic and rather offensive" part, well, in this case "crass" simply means that you think I was being overly direct, "jingoistic" means you have taken what I have said as strongly supporting the US for its own sake, even though I myself am anything but supportive of the US govt., and "offensive" means that such a suggestion goes and conflicts with your own underlying nationalism.

>>You just sound like lots of other ignorant Americans (NOT all of them, or even a majority!) who think that because many people in the world watch American films etc, we're all American now, or want to be.<<

So basically you had assumptions added to what I was saying, based on who you thought would say such things, rather than what I had said itself.

>>I took your comments at face value and I notice that you still haven't contradicted them.<<

No I haven't, because I meant what I said, and do not see any reason in appeasing others' nationalisms and like.

>>It's OK for you to say that the UK and its literature and culture is no more or less alien to you than other, non-English speaking countries. Well, the US, to most British people, is also 'alien' and 'different', regardless of how many crappy US sitcoms we might watch. The setting
of something like 'Friends' or whatever is no more familiar to me than a show set in a non-English speaking country. Most American humour is deeply unfunny to me, I don't understand or follow any of your sports, and I don't eat your food. With the exception of a few novels, American 'culture' is irrelevant to me and plays no role in my life whatsoever.<<

Tis true. The main reason why I was making that point, though, is that it seems that some (no, not even close to most) British people, unfortunately, at times seem to forget that, often in quite subtle ways (as shown by things like references to "standard English" in conversations on here and like).

>>Have you ever even been to the UK? Do you really think that it's nothing more than a 'satellite state' of the US? If so, I'm really sorry for you and your pathetically limited world view.<<

I've never been to the UK (I would have been, had a particular trip not been cancelled thanks to a paranoid school board), but you have to understand that I'm not talking about culture and day to day life and like when I speak of such. In particular, I speak of primarily *foreign policy* and to a lesser extent economic policy, when I speak of such, not anyone's daily lives. I am especially speaking of how the British gov't seems to incredibly consistently follow American foreign policy these days, *even when such policy clearly goes directly against the will of the British people as a whole* (c.f. Iraq), combined with other things that indicate a degree of inease with respect to fully becoming an equal member in the EU (such as sticking with the Pound), which is consistent with the UK being firmly in the US sphere of influence despite being a member of the EU.

I think (If I recall correctly) the last time British foreign policy at all really differed from that of the US, euroskepticism and like aside (as that does not even apply to the US), was the Falkland Islands War, and that was only because the Reagan administration liked the military regime in power in Argentina, and thus was torn between its ties with the UK and its support for the military dictatorship in Argentina. (You could say the invasion of Grenada, but that was more just the UK gov't being annoyed with US military action against the gov't in Grenada, as Grenada was part of the Commonwealth of Nations, than the UK gov't actually acting of its own will in a way contrary to the will of the US gov't per se) One way or another, it has to be said that Blair has decided that the future of the UK lies in close ties to the US rather than trying to really have a place in a new Europe, hence him being so, well, friendly with the US, regardless of the regime in power there (c.f. both Bush and Clinton)...

>>A lot of the kneejerk anti-Americanism here in Europe - and occasionally displayed on this forum - is intensely irritating to me. I've never thought of myself as 'anti-American'. When I read this sort of stuff, however, I have to concede that a lot of Europeans have a valid point.<<

Well, it's less what you've read than how you've *read into* it. Did I *advocate* American imperialism at all? No. You just *assumed* that my mention of it meant I was far it. (Actually, in reality, as much as I am an anarchist, if there are to be near-imperial-level superpowers, I would desire a strong United Europe to counterbalance the US, and also to counterbalance China, were it to also reach such a status.) Likewise, when I spoke of the UK and Canada as effective satellite states of the US, not only did you think that I was somehow for such, but also such seemed to stung underlying nationalistic sentiments of your own, with respect to the UK, hence your unexpectedly strong response to what I had said. You seem to dislike the *suggestion* that the UK might be in a satellite state-type relationship with the US, beyond what you actually think of such a relationship itself.

<<was the Falkland Islands War, and that was only because the Reagan administration liked the military regime in power in Argentina, and thus was torn between its ties with the UK and its support for the military dictatorship in Argentina.>>

There's rarely a truely integrated national outlook on any topic. While the administration and the different arms of the legislature were pulling in different directions over the Falklands War, the Pentagon had its own agenda to help where it could. To a large extent this true of most things and shows how fractured opinion is even at the highest level........returning to this thread let's not make personal opinions into national issues.

Correction:

"You just *assumed* that my mention of it meant I was far it."

should be:

"You just *assumed* that my mention of it meant I was for it."

There's nothing worse than an American anarchist (which is just a euphemism for extremist)... they're worse than imperialists.

Okay; got it all out of your systems, guys?

You'll have to excuse us, Guest: almost every thread on this board dissolves into political bullshit occasionally; most of us are pretty used to it and take it in stride.

Anyway, to get back to LITERATURE (ahem): I think, despite my specific objections to Pride and Prejudice, most of my aversion to 19th centurey (and earlier) literature has less to do with the content per se than the impenetrable writing style. It's very verbose, and some people enjoy the richness and elegance of the language and some people wade through it grimly, thinking "Jeez, were they paid by the word?"

But that's not a British thing; I've been just as put off by American authors of the same time period. And I did like A Tale of Two Cities, even though Dickens was certainly a writer in the same style.

>>There's nothing worse than an American anarchist (which is just a euphemism for extremist)... they're worse than imperialists.<<

/me glares at "hypocrite".

Pussy

Not that there's anything wrong with felines. They're just wimpy :)