Talk:British literature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

This page needs help I added a lot of links but it needs the text that is described in the first sentence. --Phoebus 18:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Overview of British literature

English literature is sadly and surprisingly in need of attention. To my mind, British literature is the place for an overview of the various literatures of the British Isles and how they have interacted and influenced each other (or not) over the centuries. That does not mean ignoring English literature in England of course, but placing it in the context of the multilingual societies of the islands helps to counter systemic bias. As a speaker of another language of the isles, I have my own axe to grind of course, but I hope this won't be held against me any more than I hold anything against monoglot anglophones! Man vyi 07:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? This article hardly covered literature in English at all before I added mentions of some minor figures like Milton, Chaucer and Dickens yesterday. It is still very likely the least anglocentric article about British literature which has ever existed. In fact, it displays chronic systemic bias against English. Do you think this article bares any resemblence to what say, a German reader would expect to find in it and would be useful to them? The literature of GB and Ireland in English is one of the major literatures of the world. The other literatures are significant in their own way, but they are not of remotely equal global significance. Articles in Wikipedia should be NPOV and focus on topics in proportion to their relevance, not make a series of nationalist points. Also, it would be seriously misleading to allow the article to suggest that the non-English literatures are the most important influences on literature in English. Greek, Latin and the major continental literatures have had far more influence than most if not all of them, especially before the 20th century.
Please don't be offended (I know I'm being optimistic here). All the other literatures should be mentioned, but this is not the place for detailed comments about them or extensive comparisons with literature in English. What is required is an occasional reference, one or two paragraphs (not more) about the most important of the literatures, and a full set of links to the articles about them. Much of the material in the article at the moment is quite inappropriate and should be moved out. I will come back soon and add more on the mainstream. Philip 21:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The paucity of material was the reason for the stub notice. Which of the material is currently inappropriate? It's all about British literature, and an article about British literature is precisely the place for detailed comments about the various trends of British literature in all the languages of the isles. So far, the article suggests that English literature has been the major influence on the other literatures of the isles, rather than the other way round. The way to balance out the article is to add the missing info on English literature - which I'll leave to you, but to suggest that an article on British literature has too much info on the other literaratures of the isles is hardly the way to a comprehensive article. I don't think the article makes nationalist points - it's stubby about all the literatures (but, so far, stubbier on English literature). Looking forward to collaboration. Man vyi 07:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A general article like this should not be simply an accumulation of relevant comments, but a coherent overview. If the article incorporated the same level of detail on English language literature as it does on the most minor of the other literatures, in proportion to the amount of published material, number of speakers, international impact, or any other criteria I can think of, it would be tens or hundreds of thousands of words long. It says somewhere in the guidelines that Wikipedia articles should not be more than 5,000 words. More detailed coverage sub-topics should be provided in linked articles. As for nationalist points, well the way that say Walter Scott is discussed solely in the context of a language other than English is clearly misleading. The sentences are literally true, but they fail to acknowledge that he was primarily an English language writer. There are other examples. More broadly, disproportionality is itself POV, and in this case it is clearly based on nationalism. A general article is not the place to boost the profile of topics which one feels to be undervalued or to air personal enthusiasms. For example, I will not try to include a long section on Jane Austen in the article.
For the sake of compromise, I am prepared to accept that 10% of those words should be about non-English language literatures, but I feel really that that is an accomodation with political correctness. This article should be of use to say, a German teenager who wants an overview of the aspects of British literature which are of universal importance. That means overwhelmingly literature in English, placed in an appropriate context. And as I have said, the most important aspect of that context is the classical legacy, not the other languages of the British Isles. You might like the opposite to be true, but it just isn't. To pretend otherwise is special pleading and POV disproportionality. The other literatures aren't even of the first importance to non-native readers in the UK. I have read most of the major works of Greek, Latin, French, Russian and German literature in translation, but nothing translated from any non-English British language. I have no reason to feel guilty about this because none of those works are part of the core Western canon. However, I won't remove anything from the article for now. I'll go and add some more details in a minute. I hope someone else will join in though, as I don't want to do it all myself. Philip 00:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have restructured the article, putting all the material on non-English language literatures (apart from Anglo-Norman and Latin) into three chronological sections. These total 1,498 words and I think that is just too much. Much of the literature mentioned would not stand a chance of inclusion if it was in English. I acknowledge that some favouritism is appropriate, but I think this is just too much. Based on the 5,000 word target which I mentioned before, it might be compared to a naval historian, a genealogist and a historian of agriculture using up 30% of the space in the main UK history article. Their contributions would all be completely valid, and would all deserve a place in Wikipedia at that length and indeed far greater length, but for most of the material that place wouldn't be the general UK history article. However I do actually think that the non-English language sections need some additions as well as removals, specifically summary comments on the overall status of non-English literatures at different periods. At the moment they consist of staccato paragraphs on individual literatures, which largely lack in context.
I've also added a very rudimentary and unpolished section on 20th century literature in English, and I'll come back at some point to do more. Philip 02:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that the article is vastly improved over a few months ago when I last looked at it; good job and thanks to all who have contributed. I'll try to pitch in if I get time. I do think, as discussed above, that the weight given to non-English-language literature is disproportionate here, especially when accentuated by the odd section headers and complete division of content. The content is very good, though; so I'd think it should eventually be moved to a separate article on non-English-language British literatures, and only a small bit of the most obvious stuff (e.g. Burns) remain here. For now it's enough if the article keeps expanding at the current standard of quality. Once more, good work. -- Rbellin|Talk 06:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some nice additions all round. The English lit info is starting to plump out nicely. Should some be copied over to English literature to help kickstart that poor old article? British literature being such a huge collection of topics (and I still don't think it's synonymous with English literature) there's no reason why it shouldn't eventually be split into separate chronological articles. On chronology, I've moved a small section on the earliest Celtic lits to the top, as otherwise the article was risking giving the impression that British literature starts with the arrival of English. Still lacking info on pre-20th century Scottish Gaelic lit. Man vyi 07:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree that anything should be copied to English literature. As I have argued on its talk page, I think it should just be a link page to the various literatures in English. There is one mainstream of literature in English in the UK (including Southern Ireland when it was part of the UK). A "English language literature of England" article would just be a duplicate of this article with some seminal figures omitted. It would be misleading, not better.
As for period articles, yes there should be some, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. I would like to see the English language section of this article increased to a budget of 4,500 words first. Once that is done sections from it can be cut and pasted to make sub articles, to which more detail can then be added. Material from the pretty full English poetry article could be added to them for a start. Philip 08:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is there just one mainstream of literature in English in the UK and/or British Isles? I believe there to be some debate on that question. Also, am I correct in understanding you to argue that there is no Literature of England worth an article in its own right? Man vyi 15:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What I am arguing is that it isn't the best way to approach the issue. If England became independent (something I would like) then it would be necessary to carve out a separate article, but at present it isn't. If there was a separate literatre of England article, which would presumably minimise the role of Swift, Scott, Joyce etc, in the development of the literature, it would be unfortunate if people seeking an introduction to the subject read that article instead of this one because they would come away less well informed.Philip 19:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I would agree with quite a few of the comments mentioned, and overall it would seem that the article has largely been written by people who only know a few key authors, and very little of influential theories of the time, let alone the corrollary relationships between literature, culture and society, in other words there's a lack of context. The section on 20th century literature is especially bad i think, a quick gloss at best, with total omission of contemporary authors. I did laugh out loud at the assumption that modernism (a historical label in itself) was taken up by authors around 1910, because of the dissaffection at the middle classes!? A look at the Modernism article would help to clarify some conceptual points here, and to gain a better sense of the events and art that inspired the movement, and especially an appreciation of its liquid qualities with regard to 'date of birth'!

I can't really be bothered to read all the arguements about English and British definitions; really this article should just be aware of the way history and culture has effected literature (and vice-versa of course). It would be good for readers to understand that British Literature involves different languages and multiple identities (including the post-colonial context), which involves a complex relationship with the English language. However, it should be balanced in the way it treats literature of the British isles, and whether you have an axe to grind or not, this means focussing more on the greater influence (on other literatures of the british isles, and the world) of literature in English. Also, admitting you have an axe to grind merely gifts this article with POV problems.--Turkeyplucker 16:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

"British literature is literature from the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. " Needs seeing to as Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. not part of britain. so they should be listd in english literature or something else.WikiUser 20:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think in this case you might be conflating the political space of Britain, which I agree doesn't include the IoM and the Channel Islands, with the cultural space, which would include the various islands. In any case, I rather doubt that they have a separate literary tradition... -- ChrisO 22:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Crown dependencies are certainly British, and their literatures are therefore British just as Welsh literature and Scottish literature are. This article is not Literature of the United Kingdom, an article which would, on the other hand, exclude them by definition. I can't see that the history of literature in Manx, Jèrriais and Dgèrnésiais would be at all welcome in English literature! Man vyi 07:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] epic link

I'm working on (skipping the "Epic" disambiguation page) and have a puzzle about the line

Although the epics of Celtic Ireland were written in prose and not verse

Most of the links for epic in this type of context are poetry, so I link to Epic poetry, but this one obviously doesn't quite apply. Anyone has an idea, please "make it so!" John 17:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Latin literature

Given this article is supposed to cover all literature written in the British Isle regardless of language, how come Latin literature has been virtually ignored. Latin was the prime language of writing from 1AD-1500AD. The earliest texts in the British Isles were not Celtic and Old English, but Latin - For instance, Gildas and Aldhelm. Craig 21 July 2006

Go ahead and add - the article is tagged for expansion, after all. Man vyi 15:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Contemporary literature

There is no contemporary lit. Someone should write about Rushdie, John Banville, Lawrence Norfolk, Zadie Smith etc. --82.131.143.18 16:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

...John Fowles, JG Ballard, Martin Amis, Ian McEwan, Sebastian Faulks etc. etc...--Turkeyplucker 16:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I couldn't find a "List of British writers"

There isn't one?--200.103.134.200 (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Lists of British writers? Man vyi (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is more than just UK literature

Hi all. I just noticed that this article defines 'British literature' as about more than just the UK - it goes back to include material than predates the UK by up to a thousand years. I therefore suggest that a better definition would be that British literature includes literature from England, Scotland, Wales etc as this covers the whole period of the article. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"British" denotes the United Kingdom. I objected to your change because it substituted "British" for "English, Scottish and Welsh". I understand that the article deals with literature produced prior to the formation of the United Kingdom, but removing "British" is likely to confuse our less informed readers. I think we need a paragraph explaining the national varieties and historical amalgamations rather than the substitution method. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I will try. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

It would appear that this article is lacking in external resources. The one source given is very reliable, I'm sure, and contains a great deal of information as well. However, it is applied to only one secion of the article, and is not accompanied by any other resources. In all simplicity, this article needs more resources. Sirtumbleweed (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)