What may account for reason(s) colonial America failed to produce a major piece of literature of her own?
25 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Didn't we already answer this in a different section?
America failed to create major piece of literature because America was still in the process of growing and expanding. There was no expansive urban community and therefore there was no large city for literature to grow out from. Literature is in sorts a form of leasure and since most people in America were still in the process of creating roots to prosper there was no time for activities which did not directly lead into economic growth. Boorstin gives examples of America's versions of writing (top of page 294 "not the litterateur but the journalist...") which were not major pieces of literature works but smaller works which had a practicality and usefulness about them. Manuals were much more popular than some extensive poem that people did not have time to read. Boorstin says that because there was so many cultures with different regiosn this made one nation in the cultural aspect hard and concequently there would be no attribution of energy towards literature.
There are many reasons why there isn't a trend towards major literature in America. First of all, there was never a center for production and distribution (like London) in America. This made it hard for literature to spread, because it had to travel much farther, and there would be variations in the text if it was produced in multiple places. Next, the seacoast was much more accessible than travel by land, so it was easier to leave the great literature to the English. Also, America didn't feel the need to base itself off of something so official. It was the people's literature, made for everyone. American books were easy to read, modest, accessible, and useful on a daily basis. There was no purposeto read for leisure when real life could be helped by reading.
Just about every aspect of Colonial America made it unfit for bookish culture and the development of major pieces of literature. The foremost of these reasons was the purpose of writing in America; it was drastically different than the purpose of writing in England. In England, aristocrats would flaunt their power and influence by employing their literacy to writing for the sake of writing. And their intended audience was a small group of other literate aristocrats. However, in America things were much different. Since literacy was widespread across America, and not just limited to the upper class, it lost its novel (pun not intended) appeal and gained a utilitarian aspect. The main use of literature in America was information, and not senseless flaunting of writing ability. And because of this, effort was never applied to produce great literary works in colonial America. Another reason for the lack of literature in America was geographical. “Bookish” societies, if they existed in America at all, existed only on the seaboard. In England, everything was quite close, since it was an island. In America, English literary influence was limited to the eastern seaboard. This is because it was easier to ship books on the Atlantic across water than it was to ship books any significant distance on land to the western territories of America. Also, England had London, its single cultural center. America, however, had multiple competing centers of culture, none of which ever succeeded in becoming dominant. The result was that there was never a single place for all the writers of America to convene. But despite all these factors, the most important is that writing for the sake of writing defies the American doctrine of devoting labor to some useful end.
America didn't create any magical work of literature art because of America's still trying to find a foothold economically and developmentally. The initial majority of the inhabitants of America were the poor from England sent over to prepare the land to be used for cash income to England. Most of these poor weren't literate and even if they were, they lived in somewhat remote areas, and even if they didn't they wouldn't even have much spare time to write a novel, let alone read one, and even if they did have time, many probably would want to. In addition to the facts/opinions above, mass production of books wasn't yet possible on a large scale. Printing a book would require a large printing press, which were rare, and a large urban center to be located in, which were also rare. The book that were printed wouldn't get far from the point of manufacture anyway.
When it came to literature, America was not known to produce books of the finest quality. Instead of seeing printed matter as literature, it was regarded more as a type of communication. Colonial America failed to produce a major piece of literature of their own because they were more focused on foreign import. It was the fact that American society took greater interest in English literature. Also American literature, although rare, was centered on local problems and disputes that did not grab any readers since they were all living through it.
Americans thought that European societies measure culture by the literature that is produced. America did not want that. Instead they wanted to be open and read a variety of topics in literature. Also, Boorstin suggests that by not producing much literature in America kept the market open for new imports.
1. America failed to create a major piece of literature because Americans focused on “reader-interest” focusing more on form than on purpose, it did not develop “appreciators.” Americans view printed material more as a way of communication rather than literature. Because of this, imports were more common. America did not have a production center like London and centers for importing and selling books were on the Atlantic coast. Also books were an urban manufactured good. There weren’t many inland cities before the revolution, thus the book business was mainly on the coast.
Since America was still a nation in progress, they did not have the time or the effort to produce a major piece of literature. Then literature was a form of art and leisure, but there was no center of trade like in London so literature could not be formed. As well as this, the people of America were still in the process of establishing a community so the focus had to be a reliable income that would boost the economy and literature was not that trade. Literature in America was for use not art. Books that were used every day, like manuals, were more important to the colonists than literature that did not tell them what to do in certain situations.
First, we must discuss the literary preferences of Americans. At this time, Americans were one of the most literate populations. This was because the religious groups in America were mostly Protestants. The main idea of Protestantism was the idea of interpreting the bible for your self. No preacher or minister or priest could tell you what the bible said, you were supposed to read it for your self in Protestantism. This led to a rise in literacy rates in protestant communities. In America, most people read the bible and little else. Americans liked practical things and hated anything that was not necessary. This explains Americans love for light reading. This light reading included things like newspapers and magazines. In addition, major literature in America counted as "The Poor Richards Almanac" by Benjamin Franklin. However, great literature in Europe was Charles Dickens, who was paid by the word, which made his books incredibly wordy. Americans preferred literature that was practical and straight forward, such as the Almanac, rather than Charles Dickens. In essence, Americans did not fail to produce any "great works" of literature. Their standards of literature were simple different from Europe’s.
America didn't produce a major work of literature because it was a little preoccupied with other things. It had to keep growing and was making sue of its survival, along with helping the mother England. Urban centers were rare, so a printing press would be hard to find or utulize well, and it is unlikely that the book would be circulated throughout all of America anyway.
It might seem strange that a country with such a high literacy rate for the time never produced its own major piece of literature, but this can be explained in part by the distinctly American approach to literature and how the idea of a “major work of literature” was a very European concept. Literature in the colonies was used in a practical way and as a way to communicate quite simple ideas. Journalists to report on what was going on in the colonies and Do-it-yourself authors dominated American writing, as opposed to European essayists and litterateurs dedicated on writing great works; American writings were aimed at the general public instead of at a small aristocracy. Knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages, and therefore the “Greats” which were so popular as reading material for the aristocracy in Europe, was not common in the colonies because the emphasis was on mastering the English language and other languages seemed superfluous. By not understanding the major works of the past, it could have been harder to create a new major work for the colonists. Transportation was also a factor in this, seeing as hauling books cross-country was much more difficult than simply storing them in the hull for the trip across the ocean, and so literary works often did not make it all the way inland to inspire Americans there. The fact that the colonies lacked a clear cultural center influenced this as well, because it was usually in these centers, such as in London and Paris, that an advanced literary atmosphere developed.
It was the “American emphasis on relevance, utility, and ‘reader interest’” along with English influence which accounted for colonial America’s lack of literary works. In Europe, books were a commodity reserved for the social elite, inaccessible to the common class. In America, bookish culture had a completely different spin, with its emphasis on being able to actually reach the average citizen. Printed works in America were only manufactured to be useful to the average citizen. Books were otherwise imported and remained within only a few major centers of distribution, due to the hassle of having to lug around heavy literature in the active lives of colonial settlers. Due to America’s view of printed works as communication rather than literature, the colonial period failed to produce a major work of literature.
1. American didn't produce a major piece of literature of her own because America was more practical at the time. Literature was used more as a form of communication than for the purpose of reading. Americans farther from the coast had less access to books so the books they did get had been filtered through England and the cities, and thus books probably weren't as major a part of their daily lives. It wasalso very difficult to print in America so they imported books and mostly printed necessities that could be used by every citizen, like almanacs.
American never really crated a great piece of literature because they had neither the time nor means to create one. They had other higher priorities, and additionally, writing in America had very different values than those in England. In America, writing was almost always just for getting an idea down on paper and communicate ideas, whereas English people had more time and resources to create great literature. Also, America lacked a cultural center for all of Americas great writers to convene. On the other hand, England had London, a city in which writers from all over the country could meet and compare literature related ideas.
A couple of things that could have prevented a major piece of literature to come out of America could have been the lack of technology to do it. At the time, England held most of the technology for creating books. Printing presses etc. America still relied on their technology to provide them books. Also, America was more focused on the whole becoming a country thing. America had to expand and unify before it cold focus on creating major pieces of literature. Plus, the fact that all the books they needed had already been published in Europe. The one thign that could have pushed them to creating their own literature would be their desire to escape te holdings of England.
American writing at the time of the Colonies was usually made for one purpose: to get a point across. Thus, there were no “American Classics” that were formed around the times of the colonies because writing was basically for subsistence and sheer communication, not for the display of complex metaphors and rhetorical strategies. Writing was further prevented by the lack of printing and wide distribution. Boorstin states, “It was infinitely less trouble to carry a dozen books in the hold of a ship for six weeks than to carry them inland for ten days.” Not only were American writers not thinking of creating sophisticated literature, they were discouraged by the factors involved in completing and publishing a book.
1. One of the main reasons that colonial America failed to produce a major piece of literature was due to their way of thought and emphasis on things. The Americans focused more relevance on use and “reader-interest which resulted in more dictations and ultimately caused more emphasis on purpose. More journalists and writers of “how-to-do-it” books spread their work to not just the wealthier class but everyone and anyone. What was written in colonial America was more about use and communication of knowledge and less about it being a great piece of literature. Again, the American community would rather learn from experience than from books.
Chapter 44 1. There were several reasons why America did not produce major works of literature. Colonial life was consistent in the fact that the people valued practicality. It was not that books were not practical it was simply that books were and urban luxury that not many people enjoyed. Planting a major book making/distribution center would have been impractical. If books were needed, it was much easier to receive literature from the English where time was easily spent writing and reading in contrast to America. Also, America wished to keep most of its ports open for import and therefore did not focus on the movement and sale of books. Taylor Oster 2009
There are several reasons why America failed to create a major piece of literature. First, literacy. Whereas in England, literacy was a comfort only the upper classes enjoyed, in America, literacy was widespread. So while those in England pursued the hobby of writing to flaunt their superiority, a few words scribbled on paper was no cause for admiration in America. In America, writing was more a means of communication and comprehension than social distinguishment and enjoyment. The second reason was that writing was a leisure sport in England. The upper classes with the time and ability to write did so. However, in early colonial America, people were occupied with putting down roots, building up cities and molding a country out of land to have the time to produce works of literature nobody would read anyways---which brings us to the third point. There were not many America literature societies where the primary joy of the people was to read. Indeed most of the few were on the coast and the seaboard, where it was simple to acquire a piece of literature from across the ocean, England. Lastly, the great cultural center of England, London, was the home of most of literature's great authors. There was no such singular center in America at the time, just several different large cities competing for cultural dominance.
Literature specific to America failed to develop for somewhat the same reasons which stopped other specialized crafts to arise: 1) In the early years, most of the populous had to work the land or provide some menial labor to scrape out a meager existence. 2) Of those that had more money, they were often more interested in other pursuits, and didn’t have the centers of education specific, or highly developed enough to create literary geniuses. Finally, there was no literary capital, a place for authors, editors and publishers to all meet, making distribution difficult if not impossible.
America had no cultural centers, the way Europe had cities such as London and Paris, and therefore had no single cultural attitude on what books were better than others. Also, books were valued more for their content and ideas, rather than their form. The combination of these two factors meant that there was no cultural elite to value one form of book over another, and therefore no “major pieces of literature,” in the English cultural sense.
THis may be so, primarily, because the Europeans had a larger and more well established intellectual class at a time when many Americans were merely farmers. It may also be that one cannot write poetry whilst one is trying to get enough food for the winter to avoid starvation.
What may account for reason(s) colonial America failed to produce a major piece of literature of her own? There were two primary reasons for the fact that America failed to produce literature on par with those written in Europe. Firstly, the colonists were busy working on their colonies. They had no extra time with which to sit down and write complex literature, and they had no time to sit down and read said literature. It was useless and obsolete. Secondly, many of the colonists did not possess higher education—they were workers, who did not have the literary experience to write literature.
Colonial America failed to produce a major piece of literature largely because that is not where their focus was."Not the Literature, but the journalist, not the essayist, but the writer of how-to-do-it manuals, not the artist, but the publisist is the characteristic Man of letters." (294) The americans were not trying to create a famous piece of literature, but rather focusing on more practical pieces of writing. It is also said that book were and urban commodity, and that there was little room for books in inland America.
The reason for America's not producing any great works of literature was that the Americans were still focusing on developing their society. Most of them were farmers, and there were not very many intelectuals, who would been the ones writing novels. Also, there was a focus on journalism and the press, as well as how-to books, and not fiction. Mira Schlosberg
25 comments:
Didn't we already answer this in a different section?
America failed to create major piece of literature because America was still in the process of growing and expanding. There was no expansive urban community and therefore there was no large city for literature to grow out from. Literature is in sorts a form of leasure and since most people in America were still in the process of creating roots to prosper there was no time for activities which did not directly lead into economic growth. Boorstin gives examples of America's versions of writing (top of page 294 "not the litterateur but the journalist...") which were not major pieces of literature works but smaller works which had a practicality and usefulness about them. Manuals were much more popular than some extensive poem that people did not have time to read. Boorstin says that because there was so many cultures with different regiosn this made one nation in the cultural aspect hard and concequently there would be no attribution of energy towards literature.
There are many reasons why there isn't a trend towards major literature in America. First of all, there was never a center for production and distribution (like London) in America. This made it hard for literature to spread, because it had to travel much farther, and there would be variations in the text if it was produced in multiple places. Next, the seacoast was much more accessible than travel by land, so it was easier to leave the great literature to the English. Also, America didn't feel the need to base itself off of something so official. It was the people's literature, made for everyone. American books were easy to read, modest, accessible, and useful on a daily basis. There was no purposeto read for leisure when real life could be helped by reading.
Just about every aspect of Colonial America made it unfit for bookish culture and the development of major pieces of literature. The foremost of these reasons was the purpose of writing in America; it was drastically different than the purpose of writing in England. In England, aristocrats would flaunt their power and influence by employing their literacy to writing for the sake of writing. And their intended audience was a small group of other literate aristocrats. However, in America things were much different. Since literacy was widespread across America, and not just limited to the upper class, it lost its novel (pun not intended) appeal and gained a utilitarian aspect. The main use of literature in America was information, and not senseless flaunting of writing ability. And because of this, effort was never applied to produce great literary works in colonial America. Another reason for the lack of literature in America was geographical. “Bookish” societies, if they existed in America at all, existed only on the seaboard. In England, everything was quite close, since it was an island. In America, English literary influence was limited to the eastern seaboard. This is because it was easier to ship books on the Atlantic across water than it was to ship books any significant distance on land to the western territories of America. Also, England had London, its single cultural center. America, however, had multiple competing centers of culture, none of which ever succeeded in becoming dominant. The result was that there was never a single place for all the writers of America to convene. But despite all these factors, the most important is that writing for the sake of writing defies the American doctrine of devoting labor to some useful end.
America didn't create any magical work of literature art because of America's still trying to find a foothold economically and developmentally. The initial majority of the inhabitants of America were the poor from England sent over to prepare the land to be used for cash income to England. Most of these poor weren't literate and even if they were, they lived in somewhat remote areas, and even if they didn't they wouldn't even have much spare time to write a novel, let alone read one, and even if they did have time, many probably would want to. In addition to the facts/opinions above, mass production of books wasn't yet possible on a large scale. Printing a book would require a large printing press, which were rare, and a large urban center to be located in, which were also rare. The book that were printed wouldn't get far from the point of manufacture anyway.
When it came to literature, America was not known to produce books of the finest quality. Instead of seeing printed matter as literature, it was regarded more as a type of communication. Colonial America failed to produce a major piece of literature of their own because they were more focused on foreign import. It was the fact that American society took greater interest in English literature. Also American literature, although rare, was centered on local problems and disputes that did not grab any readers since they were all living through it.
Americans thought that European societies measure culture by the literature that is produced. America did not want that. Instead they wanted to be open and read a variety of topics in literature. Also, Boorstin suggests that by not producing much literature in America kept the market open for new imports.
1. America failed to create a major piece of literature because Americans focused on “reader-interest” focusing more on form than on purpose, it did not develop “appreciators.” Americans view printed material more as a way of communication rather than literature. Because of this, imports were more common. America did not have a production center like London and centers for importing and selling books were on the Atlantic coast. Also books were an urban manufactured good. There weren’t many inland cities before the revolution, thus the book business was mainly on the coast.
Since America was still a nation in progress, they did not have the time or the effort to produce a major piece of literature. Then literature was a form of art and leisure, but there was no center of trade like in London so literature could not be formed. As well as this, the people of America were still in the process of establishing a community so the focus had to be a reliable income that would boost the economy and literature was not that trade. Literature in America was for use not art. Books that were used every day, like manuals, were more important to the colonists than literature that did not tell them what to do in certain situations.
First, we must discuss the literary preferences of Americans. At this time, Americans were one of the most literate populations. This was because the religious groups in America were mostly Protestants. The main idea of Protestantism was the idea of interpreting the bible for your self. No preacher or minister or priest could tell you what the bible said, you were supposed to read it for your self in Protestantism. This led to a rise in literacy rates in protestant communities. In America, most people read the bible and little else. Americans liked practical things and hated anything that was not necessary. This explains Americans love for light reading. This light reading included things like newspapers and magazines. In addition, major literature in America counted as "The Poor Richards Almanac" by Benjamin Franklin. However, great literature in Europe was Charles Dickens, who was paid by the word, which made his books incredibly wordy. Americans preferred literature that was practical and straight forward, such as the Almanac, rather than Charles Dickens. In essence, Americans did not fail to produce any "great works" of literature. Their standards of literature were simple different from Europe’s.
America didn't produce a major work of literature because it was a little preoccupied with other things. It had to keep growing and was making sue of its survival, along with helping the mother England. Urban centers were rare, so a printing press would be hard to find or utulize well, and it is unlikely that the book would be circulated throughout all of America anyway.
~Chris Sogge~
It might seem strange that a country with such a high literacy rate for the time never produced its own major piece of literature, but this can be explained in part by the distinctly American approach to literature and how the idea of a “major work of literature” was a very European concept. Literature in the colonies was used in a practical way and as a way to communicate quite simple ideas. Journalists to report on what was going on in the colonies and Do-it-yourself authors dominated American writing, as opposed to European essayists and litterateurs dedicated on writing great works; American writings were aimed at the general public instead of at a small aristocracy. Knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages, and therefore the “Greats” which were so popular as reading material for the aristocracy in Europe, was not common in the colonies because the emphasis was on mastering the English language and other languages seemed superfluous. By not understanding the major works of the past, it could have been harder to create a new major work for the colonists. Transportation was also a factor in this, seeing as hauling books cross-country was much more difficult than simply storing them in the hull for the trip across the ocean, and so literary works often did not make it all the way inland to inspire Americans there. The fact that the colonies lacked a clear cultural center influenced this as well, because it was usually in these centers, such as in London and Paris, that an advanced literary atmosphere developed.
It was the “American emphasis on relevance, utility, and ‘reader interest’” along with English influence which accounted for colonial America’s lack of literary works. In Europe, books were a commodity reserved for the social elite, inaccessible to the common class. In America, bookish culture had a completely different spin, with its emphasis on being able to actually reach the average citizen. Printed works in America were only manufactured to be useful to the average citizen. Books were otherwise imported and remained within only a few major centers of distribution, due to the hassle of having to lug around heavy literature in the active lives of colonial settlers. Due to America’s view of printed works as communication rather than literature, the colonial period failed to produce a major work of literature.
1. American didn't produce a major piece of literature of her own because America was more practical at the time. Literature was used more as a form of communication than for the purpose of reading. Americans farther from the coast had less access to books so the books they did get had been filtered through England and the cities, and thus books probably weren't as major a part of their daily lives. It wasalso very difficult to print in America so they imported books and mostly printed necessities that could be used by every citizen, like almanacs.
American never really crated a great piece of literature because they had neither the time nor means to create one. They had other higher priorities, and additionally, writing in America had very different values than those in England. In America, writing was almost always just for getting an idea down on paper and communicate ideas, whereas English people had more time and resources to create great literature. Also, America lacked a cultural center for all of Americas great writers to convene. On the other hand, England had London, a city in which writers from all over the country could meet and compare literature related ideas.
A couple of things that could have prevented a major piece of literature to come out of America could have been the lack of technology to do it. At the time, England held most of the technology for creating books. Printing presses etc. America still relied on their technology to provide them books. Also, America was more focused on the whole becoming a country thing. America had to expand and unify before it cold focus on creating major pieces of literature. Plus, the fact that all the books they needed had already been published in Europe. The one thign that could have pushed them to creating their own literature would be their desire to escape te holdings of England.
American writing at the time of the Colonies was usually made for one purpose: to get a point across. Thus, there were no “American Classics” that were formed around the times of the colonies because writing was basically for subsistence and sheer communication, not for the display of complex metaphors and rhetorical strategies. Writing was further prevented by the lack of printing and wide distribution. Boorstin states, “It was infinitely less trouble to carry a dozen books in the hold of a ship for six weeks than to carry them inland for ten days.” Not only were American writers not thinking of creating sophisticated literature, they were discouraged by the factors involved in completing and publishing a book.
1. One of the main reasons that colonial America failed to produce a major piece of literature was due to their way of thought and emphasis on things. The Americans focused more relevance on use and “reader-interest which resulted in more dictations and ultimately caused more emphasis on purpose. More journalists and writers of “how-to-do-it” books spread their work to not just the wealthier class but everyone and anyone. What was written in colonial America was more about use and communication of knowledge and less about it being a great piece of literature. Again, the American community would rather learn from experience than from books.
Chapter 44
1. There were several reasons why America did not produce major works of literature. Colonial life was consistent in the fact that the people valued practicality. It was not that books were not practical it was simply that books were and urban luxury that not many people enjoyed. Planting a major book making/distribution center would have been impractical. If books were needed, it was much easier to receive literature from the English where time was easily spent writing and reading in contrast to America. Also, America wished to keep most of its ports open for import and therefore did not focus on the movement and sale of books.
Taylor Oster 2009
There are several reasons why America failed to create a major piece of literature. First, literacy. Whereas in England, literacy was a comfort only the upper classes enjoyed, in America, literacy was widespread. So while those in England pursued the hobby of writing to flaunt their superiority, a few words scribbled on paper was no cause for admiration in America. In America, writing was more a means of communication and comprehension than social distinguishment and enjoyment. The second reason was that writing was a leisure sport in England. The upper classes with the time and ability to write did so. However, in early colonial America, people were occupied with putting down roots, building up cities and molding a country out of land to have the time to produce works of literature nobody would read anyways---which brings us to the third point. There were not many America literature societies where the primary joy of the people was to read. Indeed most of the few were on the coast and the seaboard, where it was simple to acquire a piece of literature from across the ocean, England. Lastly, the great cultural center of England, London, was the home of most of literature's great authors. There was no such singular center in America at the time, just several different large cities competing for cultural dominance.
Literature specific to America failed to develop for somewhat the same reasons which stopped other specialized crafts to arise: 1) In the early years, most of the populous had to work the land or provide some menial labor to scrape out a meager existence. 2) Of those that had more money, they were often more interested in other pursuits, and didn’t have the centers of education specific, or highly developed enough to create literary geniuses. Finally, there was no literary capital, a place for authors, editors and publishers to all meet, making distribution difficult if not impossible.
America had no cultural centers, the way Europe had cities such as London and Paris, and therefore had no single cultural attitude on what books were better than others. Also, books were valued more for their content and ideas, rather than their form. The combination of these two factors meant that there was no cultural elite to value one form of book over another, and therefore no “major pieces of literature,” in the English cultural sense.
THis may be so, primarily, because the Europeans had a larger and more well established intellectual class at a time when many Americans were merely farmers. It may also be that one cannot write poetry whilst one is trying to get enough food for the winter to avoid starvation.
What may account for reason(s) colonial America failed to produce a major piece of literature of her own?
There were two primary reasons for the fact that America failed to produce literature on par with those written in Europe. Firstly, the colonists were busy working on their colonies. They had no extra time with which to sit down and write complex literature, and they had no time to sit down and read said literature. It was useless and obsolete. Secondly, many of the colonists did not possess higher education—they were workers, who did not have the literary experience to write literature.
Colonial America failed to produce a major piece of literature largely because that is not where their focus was."Not the Literature, but the journalist, not the essayist, but the writer of how-to-do-it manuals, not the artist, but the publisist is the characteristic Man of letters." (294) The americans were not trying to create a famous piece of literature, but rather focusing on more practical pieces of writing. It is also said that book were and urban commodity, and that there was little room for books in inland America.
The reason for America's not producing any great works of literature was that the Americans were still focusing on developing their society. Most of them were farmers, and there were not very many intelectuals, who would been the ones writing novels. Also, there was a focus on journalism and the press, as well as how-to books, and not fiction.
Mira Schlosberg
Post a Comment