The Great British Novel

[RiverNotch]

the article suggests that the data shows the same across scholarly topics (but not so well on pop culture or politics).
also, i am only needling you about this reflexive “wikipedia lol” remark that is so cliche and obviously recited when any article in question contradicts an opinion or claim (especially when the claim in question is based on no research at all).

both my daughters went to school in the philippines (as well as in england—youngest went to primary school in the philippines and my eldest secondary)). i’ll ask them about it.

my only point here is, and it’s the same as my point to rowens, i am not interested in quibbling over definitions. there is such a thing as a national epic (synonymous with  great american novel); and certain novels have met the criteria for that definition (including the ones listed on wikipedia). my question was “why does america hold this particular genre is such high esteem?” or, more specifically “why doesn’t britiain (or other countries) seem to hold this genre in such high esteem?” and finally “given that there are clearly british novels that conform to this definition, which do you (dear reader) think encapsulate britishness at a specific epoch the best?—you can add novels from your own country.

NB: it doesn’t concern me in the slightest that a national epic be written by someone not originally from the country they are writing about.

Look, I owe too much to wikipedia to have been actually dismissive of it. The opener was "lol, wikipedia" not because I thought wikipedia was a relatively unreliable source, but because I received, for three overlong paragraphs, a one-sentence link to an in-this-case muddy reference; and the closer to this replied-to post was "lol, wikipedia" in a seemingly failed attempt to keep it light. I think in citing the other link you cited, the one which defended the general reliability of wikipedia, you missed the point of what you cited entirely: it's not just that wikipedia can be just as reliable as britannica, but also that an encyclopedia can at times be fairly unreliable. It is very annoying when the only rebuttal to a long argument is a short, tangential challenge to one of its premises -- without a proper counterargument ---- and, worse, when it's not meant to be an argument at all, but a note (that segued into a very silly joke).

Although, to return to the discussion, I'm pretty sure that, in the case of something as nebulous as the idea of the Great American Novel (or even national epic), quibbling over definitions is more than half of it. By questioning what it means to be "national", or by asking what differentiates what is a "novel" or an "epic", one could more easily, or at the very least more carefully, get to your third question ---- and I'm fairly certain I provided an answer to your second question, which is that Britain is old. Though it's not much of an answer, but then again it would be a petty discussion indeed if answers could so easily provide satisfaction.

...And, to further the discussion, your reference to that Wikipedia article makes me ask: is British really a national identity all its own, in a way equitable to American? Because -- and what a petty start to this branch this is -- said article differentiates between English and Scottish epics.