The Great British Novel

[busker]

I can bet that none of you have read War and Peace. You will claim otherwise, but the Lord knows the truth. The greatest novel of all time was written thousand of years ago. It’s not the Illiad, it’s not The Great Gatsby, it’s not even Kim Kardashian’s unauthorised autobiography. Hint: it’s not kind on the “gay community”, as liberals like to call it.

What's so difficult about war and peace?  3000 pages to say history is bunk

My favorite Russian novel is Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky. Didn' read Crime and Punishment cause I read Tell Tale Heart.  Seemed the same

My dad had an old volume of The Brothers K, translation by some learned geek at Raduga publishers or something. I read it when I was 15 or 16, and it got me through my bout of malaria.
Gorgeous book.
But still no patch on The Art of the Deal

[RiverNotch]

I think of it as a bit like "being cool".  Every school has the "cool kids" who look, dress and act in predictable, prescribed ways. They are cool because consensus says that's what cool is.

For the most part, those cool kids peak in high school, when they're living the stereotype that was created for them before they were born.  The Great American Novel might well have been written last week, but we won't know it until enough university professors have read it, applied the filter of hindsight, and determined that it did in fact capture the zeitgeist.  Then the New York Times will feel confident that it can proclaim it to be excellent, and all the critics will pick it over until there's nothing left to do but read it to see what everyone's talking about and compare your reading experience with what you were told to feel.

I probably should have entered the discussion talking about how, as far as I know, the Philippines doesn't have the concept of the "Great Filipino X", or even a national epic. We have two national novels, sure, in the form of Rizal's Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, but the one thing that really pulls them away from the former concepts is that they can't be used to aggrandize the supremacy of our native culture, considering they were both written in Spanish. The challenges to the supremacy of Rizal more or less focus on the political implications of celebrating a supposedly feckless bourgeois pro-colonial hundred-year-old heresiarch, rather than its aesthetic merits, which most folks who have read it in translation agree is fairly up there, while those who have read it in its original language (at least according to what I've heard) complain it's almost substandard. I suppose, from this experience, I'd say "the Great American Novel" is what Americans and America-watchers say it is (which, in the case of not just America, but most everywhere else, corresponds with a guiltless high sales output), coupled with a proper examination of just how influential it is to later American and America-watching authors; and with "Novel" being less about how the genre's any better or more American than Poetry, than how Novels have simply taken over Drama and Poetry as the dominant literary genre, with America (and, considering my discussion of Rizal, the Philippines) having a history that can only reach so far.

In fact, considering just how young the actual concept of "nation" is, and how our country doesn't quite care about its national x's the way Americans, Russians, and Brits, the great Imperial powers that they are, seem to care about their novelists, novelists/Pushkins, and Shakespeares/Miltons, respectively (keeping in mind that Russia, although old as balls, entered the whole world domination game at around the same time America was born), it'd probably be even more prudent for me to lean into the idea of this whole "national epic" and "Great American Novel" business as cultural propaganda, as if that's a point that's anything new or helpful. I think perhaps a more fruitful discussion would do away with such silly national and genre distinctions, and just discuss what one would consider as "canonical", which is a great foundation for discussing the rather juicy book I'm currently reading, titled "The Western Canon"...

PS I'm pretty sure the Bible is not kind on any human community, even the Church, considering St. Paul and St. John's constant polemics -- or, considering those same polemics, it's kind to every sinner's community equally. I'm also pretty sure that, as a literary work, it's unfair to consider the Bible as one work, its authorship is so vast (or, if one subscribes to the theory that it did not pass through human hands, (notwithstanding how the New Testament writers more often than not quoted the Septuagint rather than the Jewish manuscripts of their time, which according to the evidence of the Vulgate and the Dead Sea Scrolls, among others, is as not-entirely-identical as the Septuagint is to the manuscripts modern translators often work with) its authorship is comparable to the rest of the created world, which would push a very unfair burden on the works this discussion considers) and its style so varied, not to mention how even its own self considers itself as a collection of books rather than one gigantic book (and here I cite the discovery of the books of the Law in Chronicles, or even the etymology of the most common term for it). But perhaps you're talking about something else -- although War and Peace is only a couple of hundred years old or so.

[shemthepenman]

there are 13 titles on wikipedia’s list of national epics for the philippines (7 poetry 6 prose).

[RiverNotch]

there are 13 titles on wikipedia’s list of national epics for the philippines (7 poetry 6 prose).

Lol, wikipedia.

Also, I checked on what wikipedia had to say on that before posting that. Only two of those epics I could actually consider as "national epics", Ibong Adarna and Florante at Laura, especially since they're the ones we're actually forced to read in school. I'd say that in terms of how its story captures the national ethos, the former beats the latter, while in terms of aesthetic quality, the latter beats the former -- but really, both were written in Tagalog, at a time when Tagalog wasn't considered essentially synonymous to Filipino (in fact, when Filipino didn't exist yet: Filipino is a language invented for the sake of a national identity, although by "invented" what I really mean is "copied wholesale from Tagalog"), while the rest of those epics aren't in typical consideration because they are not, which is a relatively arbitrary decision, considering the other works that are mandated reading in school, Rizal's two novels, are read in translation. Couple that with just how important Rizal is generally considered over here (though no laws outright say so, he's our national hero, being one of three non-religious persons to have a legally mandated holiday, and the only one to have a law explicitly ordering the study of his life and works), and there really isn't much comparison.

ADDENDUM the epics I considered here were the epic poems. As for the the prose epics, the only bits of mandated reading there are, again, Rizal (although I think we were forced to read some of Lope K. Santos and Amado V. Hernandez, just not those novels, and never with the same level of emphasis), and Maragtas (from what I understand) falls into the same category as the non-Tagalog epics I discussed, while the others are decidedly influenced by Rizal's works (I think Mga Ibong Mandaragit even uses them as a plot device, at least judging by, lol, wikipedia).

[shemthepenman]

“In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia's scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica—"the most scholarly of encyclopedias," according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts.”

https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-ac...pedia.html

but that’s neither here nor there, i much prefer relying on poets on internet forums for all my scholarly information, anyway.

[RiverNotch]

“In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia's scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica—"the most scholarly of encyclopedias," according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts.”

https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-ac...pedia.html

but that’s neither here nor there, i much prefer relying on poets on internet forums for all my scholarly information, anyway.

lol, Nature

(xD)

[shemthepenman]

“In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia's scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica—"the most scholarly of encyclopedias," according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts.”

https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-ac...pedia.html

but that’s neither here nor there, i much prefer relying on poets on internet forums for all my scholarly information, anyway.

lol, Nature

(xD)

well, i can’t argue with that well researched and beautifully crafted rebuttable. you’ve certainly won this thread.

[RiverNotch]

“In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia's scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica—"the most scholarly of encyclopedias," according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts.”

https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-ac...pedia.html

but that’s neither here nor there, i much prefer relying on poets on internet forums for all my scholarly information, anyway.

lol, Nature

(xD)

well, i can’t argue with that well researched and beautifully crafted rebuttable. you’ve certainly won this thread.

lol

But also the article you cited mostly concerns itself with science stuff, which is in a way easier to be definitive about than cultural obscurities such as this (with the study you specifically pointed out being more than a decade old, and with a particularly small sample size); and why are you contesting my point without giving any actual justifications? So what if Wikipedia says that the Philippines has 13 national epics -- it's only as dependable as the stuff it cites from, and the Wikipedia article doesn't cite anything regarding those so-called national epics, not least published articles on what Philippine national epics even are, and some of the articles on those so-called national epics don't even link to the articles on the national epics themselves; whereas I, though perhaps not coming from as reliable a source as what I or you seem to decide, have at least the recourse of experience, of actually being here and going through local schooling and having been forced to read through at the very least de la Cruz, Balagtas, and Rizal, as well as references to resources that at the very least actually exist (for example, http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1956/0...t-no-1425/). And finally, at least in this discussion, I've never admitted to being anything more than I am -- I don't think my sentences would be as overlong as they are if I weren't just fooling around.

[shemthepenman]

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 contradicts an opinion or claim (especially when the claim or opinion 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  the 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.

[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.

[shemthepenman]

okay. well this isn’t going anywhere about the wikipedia thing. (wikipedia is editable, so i suggest you edit it)

about the british national identity, i would say there is one. tentatively. like the differences between the states of america, england scotland and wales have their regional idiosyncrasies. but there is definitely connective cultural tissue.

[QDeathstar]

Internet 101