Washington Irving expressed the "difficulty [American writers faced] of how to keep from being a secondhand English writer" (Irving 341). American writers feared that their predecessors would take too heavy a hand in the creation of their new works, these new works would then be cast out as being conventional and furthermore rejected by the small, elite literary world. Were Irving's fears of American writing being merely counterfeit English writing confirmed?
-
In what ways does this idea speak to the writing of the modern day American Scholars who are finding it "impossible to reconcile their...notions" of American writing because they cannot differentiate between true American writing and writing that is rooted in other countries heritage (341)?
When the rise in American literature occurred, it initially became apparent that American writers could not easily think and write about their own original ideas. In "American Literature", the author says, "Want of originality has long been the just and standing reproach to American literature ... American writers were not achieving originality" (340-341). American authors seemed to rely on the framework set by successful, English authors before them, therefore failing at their attempts to create their own original ideas. However, as times changed, the mindset of American writers began to change as well: "As everyone in the country sensed the 1850s, there was some elusive quality about its new literature that was American" (341). With the "infusion of an American 'spirit'" (341), there was also an infusion of creativity and originality. American writers broke away from the standards set by English authors, and instead established their own tradition and techniques to write good literature. Soon, authors were "pretty much on their own when they were solving their crucial aesthetic problems" (342). Each author had his own struggles that could not easily be answered, which proves a newfound sense of individuality and independence; authors could no longer rely on previous example to dictate how they should write. Authors also started writing to express a message they wanted their audience to carry with them, "devoting much of their artistic effort to analyzing conditions of life in America and to exhorting their fellow citizens to live more wisely" (342). With the introduction of the mid 19th century, American writers were no longer rooted in the heritage of other countries; rather, they seemed to be rooted in their own cultural heritage. Authors transformed into independent writers, away from the guiding hand of English writers.
ReplyDeleteEmma, great use of textual support! It seems that no matter the span of time between the founding of the first colonies in America, there will always be glimpses of other countries heritage in writing. Irving's parents were Scottish-English immigrants therefore his writing may reflect the way his parents grew up and how his parents raised him amidst Scottish and English ideals. I would liked to direct your attention to page 340 where Harper's Monthly Magazine quoted "Lack of originality has long been the just and standing reproach of American literature" (340). It seems that this pattern of lack of originality is to be expected because our country was founded by people from France, Spain, England and beyond. What makes something inherently American then may be deemed somewhat un-American now because through the ages, there is less and less influence from other countries in our literature.
ReplyDeleteIs it then simply the course of time that has allowed more American-born writers to create Americanized masterpieces, or is it that American authors are purposefully trying to convey more American ideals now, then they did before?
American writers provided something very new and revolutionary to the literature of the day, something that only they themselves could provide: insight into the American experience. Although they did root much of their work in English and European framework, they grow a very different product in this soil than that of their European counterparts.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it was clear that "Americans were not achieving originality in form", they did provide something new, a je ne sais quoi that accomplished "things yet unattempted in the English language" (341). For example, although Irving's sentences were "accepted models of English prose style", he spoke of something completely American - the "trauma of rapid change" (341). Only Americans had truly experienced the split from Britain that changed them profoundly and abruptly. Accordingly, it becomes only Americans who can convey this idea of severance aptly. In short, Irving's style does not matter so much as what he is saying. The idea, not the form, is what gave American writing of the time an "elusive quality" (341), unique American-ness.
Commenting on the question you just asked Claire, I think that time has allowed for a clearer understanding of what "American" literature is all about, which furthermore makes it easier for writers to establish this so called "Americanness" that the author is talking about in "American Literature," now-a-days, however, I also think that authors such as Irving, Melville, and Cooper were not necessarily trying to establish this "elusive quality" in their writing, but because of the fact that they experienced what it was to be an American, their writing mirrored their experiences(341).
ReplyDeleteThe author states that "In Melville's Moby Dick was a sense of the grandeur of the physical universe and man's role in it long suppressed in European consciousness"(341). Despite the fact that writers in that time period based their writing majority on past literature of England, Melville was able to establish a new type of literature in which the man's relationship with nature and the power of human beings to destroy nature is so evident. Perhaps he is able to do this because of his experiences in America and his raw understanding of the "trauma of rapid change"(341), however, the American authors of that time period nonetheless established themselves as separate than that of the English.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAmerican literature has " a special quality" that is not easily defined (340). Maybe this "elusive quality" is based on the shared American experience-descending from or being an immigrant and creating a culture from the cast off pieces of hundreds of others (341). It could also be based on the American awareness that tired ideas in literature would be ignored. Americans were under more pressure than anyone else. The country was new and developing its cultural reputation. A failure would mean foreign critics would not only negatively review the book, but criticize the "undevelopedness of American culture". American literature became an analysis of Americans themselves. Arguments against "the wholesale loss of Yankee individualism" would define American values and political beliefs (343). By analyzing its people, American writers captured the country as a whole.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of modern day American scholars, I do not believe that writers have given up on creating "distinctly American writing" America is a country of diversity and a place where oppressed people have come to freely practice their beliefs. Writing from other countries heritages is what lays the foundation for American literature. The challenge is to synthesize all these influences and unify the American story
What makes American writing unique is that it is influenced by so many other cultures and by current presences in life (many of the writers mentioned in this book greatly impacted each others' works).
ReplyDeleteSo basically the rest of the world tossed in a blender = America. And the ideas of the rest of the world + originality = original American literature.
While technically Americans writers were "second-hand English" writers, I don't think that undermines the word "American." We are American because of everything that came before us. It wasn't the presence of Europe in American culture that made Americans fear that their works would never be respected, but lack of pride of the wonderful additions Americans made to the pre-existing culture.
I agree with Amanda!
ReplyDeleteAmerica truly a melting pot of cultures, and although writers styles may be viewed as unoriginal, as they "copy" other cultures. However America is a combination of other cultures, therefore American Literature is inevitably influenced by surrounding countries. Irving states: "Melville... realized that the new immigrants were changing the country..." (346). Each culture that steps in America, influences its identity, subsequently influencing the literature. Writers recognized the necessity of incorporating all cultures into the "American Literary Tradition", which therefore although it borrowed influences from cultures, the blend made it completely original. Going off of the idea of the "elusiveness of American writing", unlike other cultures America transformed writing, adapting literature to mold to American life, and fully represent the inhabitants of this nation.
In my AP U.S History class, there is a quote that says, “There were no human occupants of these ‘new’ lands when the first migrants arrived, so all Americans without exception were, are, and always will be immigrants or the children of immigrants from every part of the earth” (Inventing America 6). This is interesting because these American writers were trying to stray from English influence in their writing, even though they are English. Like their heritage, their writing will always be “immigrants” from all European descent. Also as Eliot says in “Tradition and the Individual Talent”; “the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that the whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the whole of the literature of his own country has a simultaneous existence and composes a simultaneous order” (Eliot). If Eliot is right about keeping all generations in mind, then why is it that these “American” writers are trying to break away and furthermore is there even a true American type of writing? Irving mentions many writers, authors, artists, and poets in his essay “American Literature.” He describes the process that some of the writers went through to become “American” writers. Thoreau, Emerson, Dickinson, and Melville are only 4 of many that he mentions. He says that these “American writers were accomplishing things yet unattempted in the English language” (Irving 341). These writers slowly broke loose from these influences and began to write in different ways. Also, “only Whitman rejected the opinion that woman’s proper “sphere” was a limited, subservient, supportive one” (Irving 343). He was not what was considered normal in his times. This is what American’s writers did; they broke away from tradition. So Irving’s fears of American writing were both confirmed and denied because these American authors became something different, but still had an influence of European writing because that was their foundation.
ReplyDeleteWere Irving's fears of American writing being merely counterfeit English writing confirmed?
ReplyDeleteYes. Americans were just "secondhand english writers". They used the ideas of the past and copied the prose and form of Englishmen. Yes, Americans did have an "elusive quality" based in their American experiences. But there content as English counterfeits remained the same.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mike. While there is no doubt that there is the "elusive quality", American writing ultimately derived from the works of Europeans. It is impossible to strip the human mind of every influene encountered, therefore, everything American writers produced had some correlation to the works of predecessors. Now, I am not saying this with a negative connotation. In fact, I think that it is incredible how, over time, American writing has not died and exhausted all of creativity. There is no other place in the world where such a "profound alienation" occurs than in America (342). Like Carolyn said, America is the only "blender" in the world. Ideas are universally derived, thus they are universally appreciable. For that reason, American literature is "Americanized" as the influences join to produce richer material.
ReplyDeleteOf course, American writers were forced to copy their English counterparts at first, how else would they have writtenif they didn't have something to go off of? Is it still true to this day? Are we still merely rip off's of the English scholars of our past, or not? Or are we now rip off's of the first American Scholars?
ReplyDeleteThe writers of the 19th century, were original in their desire to defy the orthodox church and challenge religion for it was "one vast lie" (344). Tomorrow in class, let us touch upon how the spiritual questioning of these authors (specifically let me point to the passages beginning on page 344) made them more American and transcend the ideas of the past.
Much like a child leaving its parents American writers could not immediately support themselves with a background and culture in writing of their own country, they had to look to England and a handful of other countries for inspiration. "Americans were not long behind the British in responding to the Romantics Wordworth..."(340). Having no culture to base writing on themselves Americans had to follow the trends of other countries while their own country developed. But slowly things started to change in America, "...men and women deserted worn-out farms for factories" (343). The country was becoming more interesting and providing a new sense of individuality to draw from. Our country was also becoming the melting-pot we know it to be today, "...the new immigrants were changing the country..." (346). America was now getting its own culture too. Now that the United States was coming into its own Irving's ideas could be disproved by writers such as Poe, Hawthorne, and Melville. Moving onto the second question I look back at America becoming a melting pot. Unless of course you look at Native American writing, literature form our country is a hybrid of styles and influences from the many different cultures that make up our country. Therefore true American writing unlike almost every other country, is rooted in the traditions of other countries.
ReplyDeleteI think that Connor makes some very important points in saying that at the beginning Americans had no culture of their own. To further this point, I think that there is not difference between "true" american writing and writing that is rooted in other countries' cultures because American culture is a mix of all other cultures. During the 19th century, "writers realized that new immigrants were changing the country form the cozy, homogeneous land it had been, or had seemed to be." (246) Here, the point is made that new immigrants into the country is changing the very make up of the people living on the land. New cultures brought in my immigrants will bring "change" with them to add to the melting-pot that is america.
ReplyDeleteIn this way, I think that modern writers do not try to reconcile the notion of true american writing from writings from other countries because they simply cannot. Other cultures is an essential part of the makeup that is American writing and I think that rather than differentiating the two, modern writers are combining the two and creating something new. For example, in Housekeeping, Robinson draws on stories from the Bible, a christian text that was created in Western Europe, to enhance her ideas on transcendentalism and the idea of the freedom that comes with living in America. Her work, however is not thought of as European, instead it is an "american novel" that explores "american ideals". In this way, Robinson employs writings from other countries to enhance her writing. She does not balk from using it because it is not originally "American". Instead she absorbs it and uses it to create something entirely "american".