Talk:British literature/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

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)

That so much of the page is interspersed with tidbits to do with wlesh and other non elighs writing makes the material confusing for those of us who wanted to know about british english literature, which i expect is the largest audience for th epage. perhaps the material can be pulled apart so the english material follows a timeline and the non english another?

Overview of British literature

English literature is sadly 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)

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)

Literature from Ireland

I have to say, I am absolutely amazed to find Irish writers listed in this article as being British! To describe people like Sheridan Le Fanu, Dion Boucicault, Bram Stoker, W.B. Yeats, James Joyce, G.B. Shaw, Samuel Beckett and Seamus Heaney, etc., as 'British' is absolutely ludicrous! Especially Heaney, who has very vocally stated that he is Irish. This article is highly inaccurate in claiming Irish writers for Britain. Generally, Irish literature (whether it is from Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland) is seen as being separate from British literature.

Of course, it is quite reasonable to include in this article Irish writers who lived in Britain for a considerable part of their life, or/and set many of their works (like Bram Stoker) in Britain itself. However, in these cases, it should be clearly stated that these were Irish writers living in Britain, and were not actually British people.

The way this article is currently written is an absolute insult to Irish people, the vast, vast majority of whom do not see themselves as being British. After all, the vast majority of Ireland is part of an independent and sovereign state called the Republic of Ireland. This article is, with the greatest respect, downright inaccurate at the moment. I am appealing to the general editor of this article to remedy the gross inaccuracy of including writers from Ireland in this article. If these concerns are not met, then, alas, I will be forced to make a formal complaint to the Wikipedia authorities about this article. Laggan Boy (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

In revising the the preamble to this entry I included Ireland as part of the UK, but then, because of the comment "Really", saw this as an error and changed it to Literature of Northern Ireland. But on further thought believe that things aren't quite that simple! For one thing Literature of Northern Ireland doesn't have a separate entry but links to Irish literature. Furthermore this is ignores the change in 1921, and the fact that Joyce, Yeats, Beckett etc. were born British. This is obviously problematic and I don't wish to offend. Would it be acceptable to clarify the situation of Irish writers born in the period before 1921? Perhaps a phrase like colonial era before 1921 could be used?

Yeats and Joyce are discussed in this entry as if they were both Irish and British, while Beckett is recognized as a major influence on British drama. Rwood128 (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is such a thing as "British literature" (most probably an overlapping complex of British literatures), I'd have thought that Irish writers have contributed greatly to it. And conversely Ulster-Scots writers belong to a literary tradition that has developed in different territories. When the Celtic Revival was getting underway in Ireland, Dublin was one of the capitals of the British Empire and the literary developments in Ireland had impacts on Scottish literature, for example, and (my particular sphere of interest) Jèrriais literature. The cultural history of the islands, big and small, is so intertwined and disputed that attempting clear-cut separations is difficult (and, I would suggest, misleading when imposed retrospectively). Suppose we imagine what would happen if the forthcoming referendum on Scottish independence led to formal separation. Would the involvement of Scottish writers in the history of British literature have to be teased out of the article? I think there is a place for an article that covers the overlapping literatures of the isles: if it focused on the shared heritage, broad trends and mutual influences without trying to duplicate the listing of every writer, that would be best perhaps. Man vyi (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there some kind of middle position here? It seems to me that people like Swift, Wilde, Shaw, LeFanu, Stoker, who lived their lives wholly or largely under British sovereignty, clearly should be considered British writers. People like Heaney, Beckett, and Behan, who lives largely or entirely in the Free State/Republic after independence, probably should not be considered British writers, as British tends to be used today to refer only to the UK. The complicated issue would be those who spanned the period, like Joyce and Yeats - I'd say, though, that anyone literarily active while Ireland was part of the UK can properly be described as a British writer. john k (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Some recent edits have attempted to remove material relating to writers from Ireland - even material relevant to the history of literature of Northern Ireland. Once again the problem to be dealt with is that of overlapping identities. London has of course been a prime market and centre of activity for Irish writers (eg Yeats, George Moore, Thomas Moore); and I don't think it's unreasonable to mention how Irish writers have influenced other writers of the Isles. The Britishness of literature of Northern Ireland is, as is mentioned in the article, subject to competing claims - is all UK literature British? If Yeats's influence on British literature is to be excluded, whither Salman Rushdie, for example? Thoughts? Man vyi (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the recent edits are correct in removing Joyce? But he was a major international influence on the novel. The references to Beckett, is equally tricky. His Irish birth is acknowledged in the article, as is his residence in France, but the point is that his writing in English has had a major influence on British literature. Incidentally Beckett's novel Murphy is set in London. Did Beckett translate from French to English for Irish audiences/readers? Waiting for Godot received its English premier in London, and several radio and TV plays were written for the BBC. While it is easy to draw a political line between Britain and the Irish Republic, this cannot be done so easily with literature.

Maybe this topic should be addressed further in the general preamble to the 20th century? This could directly address the thorny question of including any reference to writers such as Yeats, Joyce, and Beckett in an article on British literature. The reasons why both Joyce and Beckett left Ireland should also be discussed. Also I'd suggest restoring the deleted passages, with some minor edits. I must admit that I find references to The Isles odd, but I left England long ago. Rwood128 (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps an article called 'Literature from the British and Irish Isles' would be an appropriate, reasonable compromise? The article 'British literature' could then strictly confine itself to literature produced within Great Britain itself, together with literature from the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, written by British writers (ie., writers from England, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands). Irish literature is usually treated as a separate subject from British literature in most universities around the world. I think the books of both Prof. Terence Brown (Trinity College, Dublin) and Prof. Declan Kiberd should be consulted as regards this debate. Both are Ireland's main cultural and literary historians. Laggan Boy (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any problem myself in having a hard cutoff point in saying that post independence writers (and writers post-independence) from what is now the Republic of Ireland should not be subjects of this article. It would be perhaps a little too hardline to say that, although Indian, American, South African, French etc writers may be cited as influential on British literature, Irish writers may not be. Irish writers working in the rest of the Isles probably shouldn't be excluded automatically either. Writers from Northern Ireland, and literature about Northern Ireland, are surely part of literature of Northern Ireland and are therefore to be covered comprehensively as an inherent part of the article. Scots literature is particulary difficult to cover without reference to Scotland-Ireland cultural cross-fertilisation; and similarly in the earlier Gaelic period, the linguistic and literary unity covering Ireland and Scotland, in which modern Scottish Gaelic literature, and presumably Irish language literature in Northern Ireland, have roots, makes any quest for illusory literary purity rather strange. But these cross-cultural influences are what interest me about the multilingual and mutinational (and multifarious) concept of British literature (and I'm intending to revisit Anglo-Norman literature - as a case in point: is "The Song of Dermot and the Earl" strictly Irish literature or Cambro-Norman or perhaps both?). Man vyi (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand the point about creating a new article that would include British literature and literature from all of Ireland. The British literature article may need the occasional rewording, but it does not really attempt to claim writers from the Irish Republic as British. The entry for Samuel Beckett should certainly be reinstated, as has been a major influence on British writers, and his works were generally first performed and published in France, Britain, Germany and the USA, rather than the Irish Republic. Though leaving no doubt as to his distinct Irish identity.

I would also suggest that the preamble to the 20th century should be revised, to read something along the following lines:

• The year 1922 marked a significant change in the relationship between Great Britain and Ireland, with the setting up of the Irish Free State in the predominantly Catholic South, while the predominantly Protestant Northern Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom. This separation also leads to questions as to what extent Irish writing prior to 1922 should be treated as a colonial literature. In particular there is possible controversy about including any discussion of writers from the Irish Republic. Those 20th century writers born before 1922, such as W. B. Yeats, James Joyce and Samuel Beckett are particularly problematic. Irish writers are, therefore, only mentioned, if they are from Northern Ireland, or had a major influence on British literature. Nationalist movements in Britain, especially in Wales and Scotland, also significantly influenced writers in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Rwood128 (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, on further consideration most of the recent changes/deletions seem sensible, though I obviously the important influences of writers such as Yeats, Joyce and Beckett on British literature cannot be excluded from any discussion. And the question as whether these and other writers wrote for a British as much as an Irish audience should not be ignored.

By the way what about George Bernard Shaw? Irish born certainly, but he lived and worked in England, so should he has been deleted from the list of British Nobel winners? He certainly cannot be excluded from any discussion of the British theatre. Rwood128 (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I must use the example of Franz Kafka in this debate. He was born and raised in Prague in what was then the Lands of the Bohemian Crown (German: Böhmische Kronländer; also known as the Czech Crown Lands) in what was then the Cisleithanian part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. To add to all this, Kafka and his Jewish family spoke and wrote in German (especially Austro-German) as their first language, only using Czech as a second language. Kafka spent the vast majority of his short life living within the Austro-Hungarian Empire under Habsburg rule. He was thus born, and spent most of his life as, an Austro-Hungarian subject, a subject of the Habsburg imperial dynasty. The last six or so years of his life were spent living in, and being a citizen of, Czechoslovakia, a new republic that was one of the successor states of the old Habsburg Empire.

Yet Kafka is never referred to as an Austrian or a German writer. He is rarely even referred to as a 'Czechoslovak' author. He is almost always referred to as a Czech writer, even though he wrote almost all his works in the German language. Sometimes he is referred to as being an 'Austro-Hungarian' writer, but very rarely. As I say, Kafka is almost always referred to as being Czech. This in no way lessens the fact that his work is a major part of literature and writing in the German language. Nor does it lessen the fact that his work is a major part of the literature produced within the Holy Roman Empire and its successors, the Austrian Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. However, Kafka is almost always seen as being a Czech, despite the fact that he rarely wrote works in the Czech language.

So, if Kafka, to use just one example, can be seen as being Czech and not Austrian or German, then why can't Irish writers (whether they are from Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland) be seen as being just Irish and not British? It seems that there is one rule for the British, and a different rule for everyone else in the world!!! It seems that the British want to claim as their own the great literary achievements of 'Our Wee Country' over here!! Laggan Boy (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• A most interesting example. I don't think that the article, as recently revised, does claim that writers from the Republic are British, but your point seems to be that the article should not included any Irish writers. Following this argument isn't the logical outcome, that this article should be deleted, and that there should just be separate articles on English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish literature (Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic)? I'd have no serious objection to this, but I doubt that there would be a consensus.

Would it help if something is added to indicate that some in Northern Ireland, and other parts of the British Isles, object to being called British? Rwood128 (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

One of the problematic areas is precisely to acknowledge the status of Irish writers, and I think mentions of writers of Irish identity are in cases necessary, not to "claim" their achievements but to give due credit to their influence. For example, Beckett's influence on Stoppard and Pinter, for example, shouldn't, in fairness to the reader, be airbrushed out - and the development of autonomous literary identity in non-English areas (plus Cornwall!) of the Isles owes a lot to the intertwining example of Irish literature. From my own perspective at this end of the Isles, the Norman literary renaissance of the C18th/C19th in the Channel Islands was influenced by contact with Ireland, Scotland, Occitania and, of course, mainland Normandy. From the period of the Anglo-Norman cultural commonwealth, Norman literature has influenced both British literatures and French literature; however Norman writers needn't be excluded from the history of British (or indeed Irish) literature simply on the grounds that most of Normandy is now under French sovereignty. George F. Le Feuvre, Jersey's greatest prose writer of the C20th, emigrated as a young man and spent most of his life as a resident, and citizen, of the United States - but his literary output was published in Jersey. Another interesting case is that of Victor Hugo whose long exile in the Channel Islands, and interaction with Channel Island writers, means that his contribution to British literature is important even though no-one would claim he was anything but a French writer. On the point of Northern Ireland: it's a territory that partakes of both Irish and British identity, Irishness and Britishness not being mutually exclusive. Thanks for the interesting discussion! Man vyi (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Re the latest revisions.

Some, like the deletion of O'Casey and the reference to Heaney's translation of Beowulf, are appropriate. The other reference to Heaney is more tricky. As it emphatically recorded Heaney's rejection of the British aspect of his Northern Ireland identity, it provided valuable background information to the evolving history of the relationship between Britain and Ireland. The subject of Irishman Samuel Beckett's influence is appropriate, as already noted, but the sentence deleted was rather weak. Interestingly, the influence of both Shaw and Synge are apparently accepted, and Louis MacNeice was also not deleted, though the reference to him as an Irish writer was.

With regard to Northern Ireland both viewpoints surely have to be included. Rwood128 (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

As I don't want to offend, or start an editing war, is the following wording acceptable, for the entry on Drama after WWII? Perhaps, however, the section that lacks citation should be deleted.

Again in the 1950s the Theatre of the Absurd profoundly affected British dramatists, especially Irishman Samuel Beckett's play Waiting for Godot, which premiered in London in 1955 (originally En attendant Godot, 1952). Among those influenced was Harold Pinter (1930-2008), (The Birthday Party, 1958) and Tom Stoppard (1937- ) (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, 1966). Pinter's works are often characterised by menace or claustrophobia., while those of Stoppard are notable for their high-spirited wit and the great range of intellectual issues which he tackles. Both Pinter and Stoppard continued to have new plays produced into the 1990s.

I don't think Ireland (North and South together) is in the same category as Scotland or Wales on this issue. The vast, vast majority of the Irish people see themselves as Irish, and Irish only. This vast, vast majority of the population of our country (North and South combined) do not see themselves as being British. In the case of the Republic of Ireland, this position has official status as the Republic is an independent and sovereign state. The Republic is'nt even a member of the Commonwealth!! Within Northern Ireland, almost 50% of the population there is Irish Catholic. This section of the Northern Irish population regards itself as Irish, with many also considering themselves Northern Irish; very few members of this section of the community regards itself as British.

In addition to all this, Ireland has physically fought against English / British rule for centuries, including on several occasions in both the nineteenth century and the twentieth century. This is quite different from both Wales and Scotland (especially Lowland Scotland), certainly in more modern times (ie., post 1700). Both Scotland and Wales, being part of Great Britain, were fully integrated into the British state. Scotland in particular became, along with England, a ruling power of both the United Kingdom and the British Empire. After all, the first truely 'British monarch' was a Scotsman, King James VI and I, a man who often styled himself as 'King of Great Britain'. The Scottish people and the Welsh people were always seen, certainly since the early 1700s at least, as being 'solid' British Protestant folk. This is in stark contrast to how Ireland and its vast Irish Catholic majority were treated. Even after the Kingdom of Ireland was absorbed into the new United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in January 1801, Irish Catholics were still treated very differently from the way the Scottish and Welsh were treated.

This is, obviously, a rather generalised point. I in no way wish to downplay the significance of the 'The '45', the vast rebellion that took place in Scotland (especially in the Highlands) under Bonnie Prince Charlie in 1745-46. Nor do I wish to downplay the brutal Highland Clearances of the late eighteenth century or early nineteenth century. However, very often, most of those involved in suppressing 'The '45' or in ordering and implementing the Clearances were Scottish, very often Lowlanders. The fact remains that the Scottish, by the late eighteenth century, were a 'ruling people' of the British Empire. The Irish, on the other hand, remained a 'ruled people', a subjugated people (especially Irish Catholics).

Today (Sept. 2013), the vast majority of people in both Scotland and Wales recognise that they are British. Even most Scottish nationalists and most Welsh nationalists accept that they are British, certainly for as long as their countries remain within the United Kingdom. Of course, they see themselves as being Scottish or Welsh as well. And, as both Scotland and Wales are as much a part of the island of Great Britain as England is, they have as much a right to the term 'British' as the English do. This is all very different from Ireland, where the vast majority of the population have always rejected being called British. In Ireland, only Unionists, mainly in Ulster, have considered themselves to be British.

Still, I commend the editors of this site for engaging with this debate and for doing their best to improve this site, making it much more accurate in the process. Well done! At least you are taking on board the feelings of most people over here in Ireland. Laggan Boy (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't Seamus Heaney at least be mentioned in this article, despite the obvious difficulties, for the sake of clarity. He is a poet from Northern Ireland, who drew both on his experiences, as well as the language, of that part of Ireland. Not only was he born in Northern Ireland but Heaney was also buried there. Would the following brief entry be acceptable?

• While Seamus Heaney is another poet from Northern Ireland, he regarded himself as Irish, not British, so that he is not included here.

There are possibly other problematic writers: The Welshmen Saunders Lewis (just the image) and R. S. Thomas, for example. There may be other nationalist who would object to their inclusion here. Possibly the entry for R. S. Thomas needs amending.

A further thought. Surely in any discussion of poetry from Northern Ireland, especially in any Irish school or University, Heaney would be included. See Literature of Northern Ireland

Rwood128 (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally, and I know I speak for the vast majority of people over here in Ireland (North and South combined), I don't think any writer from Ireland should be included in this article. If they lived for a long time, or were very influential, in Great Britain, then, perhaps, they can be mentioned in this article, so long as it is emphasised each time that they are Irish and not British. In the case of the late Seamus Heaney, a native of south County Derry, he was always adamant that he was Irish and not British. And, over here in Ireland (North and South), we see the Literature of Northern Ireland as being a part of both Ulster literature and Irish literature. Laggan Boy (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As this is supposed to be an impartial encyclopaedia article the Literature of Northern Ireland cannot be excluded. Indeed on further thought, I cannot see how even Seamus Heaney can really be excluded, given his strong connection to Northern Ireland. On the other hand there is just a brief reference to Heaney and one which emphasizes that he is Irish. Within this article it seems appropriate to include a discussion of all writers from Northern Ireland, so long as objections, such as yours, are respected, and Irish writers, including Heaney, are not claimed to be British. The entry On Seamus Heaney is my attempt at a compromise, which respects the views of all the people of Northern Ireland, rather than Ireland as a whole. I'll check to see whether further emphasis is needed to the objection to describing writers from Northern Ireland as British. Rwood128 (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@Rwood128, you would have to source writers from NI as to whether or not they are Irish, or British. As they can be either, or both. Seamus Heaney was Irish, a point he made, if you want to include him as British, this article would be as ill informed as the gaurdian article that 3, yes 3 Irish writers, amongst other nationalities had to be removed from and the other, again gaurdian article that claimed Roddy Doyle to be on of the most influential modern British authors- that took two days of derision before being edited to Irish. Murry1975 (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• The article makes it very clear that Seamus Heaney is Irish and that he is only included, because historically his roots are in Northern Ireland. Heaney's association with this part of Ireland and its sad history cannot be ignored, so long as he is not claimed to be a British writer. I also added a sentence to underline the difficulties here: "There are many others who question whether the Literature of Northern Ireland is Irish or British." Rwood128 (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

I don't see why an article about 'British literature' should cover all literature produced in the entire British and Irish Isles. This article should only cover literature from Great Britain, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Irish literature (whether written in Latin, Irish or English) should not be included here. Irish literature is generally seen as being separate from British literature.

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)

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)

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)

Whither Gerard Manley Hopkins?

Seriously; whither? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael'sBallacks (talk • contribs) 10:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Science fiction

Is not mentioned at all in the article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Scope of the article

I can see that there are areas which might be called "British literature", but there really can be no sense in this article duplicating material at English literature. May I suggest that some boundary between the two is needed? Moonraker (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As a starting point for discussion, may I suggest that this article should deal in depth only with information which does not belong in English literature, Scottish literature, Irish literature, Welsh literature in English, Modern literature in Irish, or Welsh-language literature? Moonraker (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

2012-05-16 we now have all these articles:

• Literature —now tagged "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with English-speaking territories and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
• Literature in English —redirects to English literature (contrast Category:Literature in English)
• English literature —lead now includes "English literature is the literature written in the English language, including literature composed in English by writers not necessarily from England; . . . In other words, English literature is as diverse as the varieties and dialects of English spoken around the world. In academia, the term often labels departments and programmes practising English studies in secondary and tertiary educational systems. . . . This article primarily deals with some of the literature from Britain written in English."
• British literature
• English studies covers what is sometime/somewhere called "English", "Literature", or "English literature" as a school subject or academic department. Literature is one of three subfields. (I suppose "English Studies", having a literature subfield, may be represent a brave? or vain? attempt to help "Literature" happily broaden in scope and "English Literature" happily narrow, nationalize. But neither development will be happy; my annotations suggest that there is great inertia, momentum, or opposition to overcome.)

More observations:

• Only the bold carry the "Literature" right-hand navigation box.
• Literature evidently leaves detective stories, science fiction, picturebooks, and so on, outside and below "literature" (see Genres and Talk). The other articles may be more comprehensive but they simply link the keyword literature.
• WP:CATegorization tends to, tries to, or does enforce a national meaning for English in reference to England. For instance, at different locations in the tree, categories British children's writers, fantasy, and short stories as well as literature contain the English alongside the Scottish and Welsh, and rarely something about Northern Ireland (Category:Novels from Northern Ireland).
  • (I feel sure that too many articles (biographies of children's writers, and so on) are called British rather than English, Scottish, or Welsh. On that matter I will ask questions elsewhere and help do better with the articles that I work on.)
• We have Category:Literature in English, one of few categories with a substantial preface that explains its scope usefully. It partly handles the anomalous or equivocal nature of "English literature", but doesn't have much category tree; we have neither articles nor categories that cover English-language children's writers, fantasy, or short stories.

Dear reader, I trust that at least one observation helps or interests you! --P64 (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Duplication and redundancy

There is too much duplication on Wikipedia! There is no need for for articles on both British and English literature, especially as there are articles on the other literatures of the British Isles and Ireland. There is further duplication with main articles on Romanticism, Victorian literature and so forth. The overall quality, which is pretty poor in the area of literature, could be improved if editors' efforts were focussed better than is the case now. Rwood128 (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Review my survey in the preceding section.

First let me continue the survey. "Literature in English" which redirects to "English literature" has no history and no talk. There is some relevant old talk in category space: Category talk: British literature, Category talk: English literature. Category talk: Literature in English is now red (Category:English-language literature).

Second, I note that the lead paragraph at English literature clearly fits the linguistic interpretation of nationality, so to speak; which is entirely appropriate given the "Literature in English" redirect. That model does fit some other wiki-coverage. For example compare the English and German leads:

German literature. "German literature comprises those literary texts written in the German language. This includes literature written in Germany, Austria, the German part of Switzerland, and to a lesser extent works of the German diaspora."

(At the moment "Literature in German" is red and "Literature of Germany" redirects here. Austrian literature and Swiss literature are quite different.)

English literature/Literature in English. "English literature is the literature written in the English language, including literature composed in English by writers not necessarily from England; for example, Robert Burns was Scottish, James Joyce was Irish, Joseph Conrad was Polish, Dylan Thomas was Welsh, Edgar Allan Poe was American, V.S. Naipaul was born in Trinidad, and Vladimir Nabokov was Russian, but all are considered important writers in the history of English literature."

That's only half of each lead paragraph. The English section concludes with a "surprising" prose redirect, however: "This article primarily deals with some of the literature from Britain written in English. For literature from specific English-speaking regions, consult the see also section, bottom of the page."

French literature and Spanish literature lead paragraphs and articles focus on the modern national territories of France and Spain. Perhaps they gain clarity by use of the right-hand menus "French and Francophone literature" and (underdeveloped) "Literature of Spain".

What's the bottom line here (and at Welsh literature, etc)? The most urgent question is whether to proceed as if English literature/Literature in English is fixed in structure, scope, and nature. If not, the matter must be discussed there --and there and there if some will be directed to category space.

It may help to be familiar with the current situation regarding categories such as British novels/writers and English novels/writers. But I am familiar with that situation and have nothing more to say, so I can't promise that it helps. --P64 (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This article deals with the same literature as the article English literature, with the addition of literature of the other languages of the British Isles. A merging is surely needed. There is also the subject of various other overlaps and between survey articles, like this, and main articles on subjects like Romanticism, Victorian novel, etc.

I have also placed a comment on the English literature page. Rwood128 (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

In theory, English literature should deal with all literature written in English, while British literature should deal with literature written by people from the British Isles or the UK. This doesn't seem to really be the case at the moment, because English literature doesn't actually do what it's supposed to do. john k (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

English language literature since 1900 --needs dividing?

This section needs to be divided into parts: say, 1901-1945; 1946 to 21st century? The division could perhaps be made roughly at the following point: "One of the most influential novels of the immediate post-war period was William Cooper's naturalistic Scenes from Provincial Life". Rwood128 (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole article used to be arranged roughly chronologically (rather than linguistically), and then the English language and non-English language content got split up (unhelpfully, in my view). Is there a case now for dividing the period from 1900 into manageable chunks but also to merge the various literatures? So that, for example, all mentions of WWI literature occurs in the same place? Man vyi (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better if the various linguistic groups were combined, though it's understandable why this division has occurred. Rwood128 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

19th century English language literature

The short sections Ireland, Wales, Scotland should be merged into the preceding sections (and some content belongs in the 20th century). I didn't notice any real discussion of Welsh literature in English in the 19th century. Rwood128 (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would the majority of Irish literature be considered a sub-set of British literature? While some works by Irish writers might be considered 'British', Bram Stoker, Wilde, Shaw etc., the vast bulk is not usually classified in this way. RashersTierney (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In the section in question the references are to Irish writers who lived and worked in England and to the Celtic Revival (which should probably be better linked to Irish Literary Revival) and its quest for a distinct Irish literature. And we come across the same problems of definition of Britishness: was Ireland in the C19th a British territory, and has literature of (what became) Northern Ireland ever been non-British in modern times? It is, in any case, I'd suggest, pertinent to mention the influence of Irish literature on British literature (just as influences from French literature and Occitan literature are alluded to elsewhere in the article). Man vyi (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I realize, belatedly , that this article does not properly acknowledge the change in the relationship between Britain and Ireland in the early twentieth century. It also at least needs to consider the question as to whether Irish literature before 1922 was a colonial literature.

Things can get quite complicated, as, for example, a quick web search reveals that James Joyce apparently continued renewing his British passport. Is there are good study of the attitude of Irish writers to Irish politics? Rwood128 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Seamus Deane and Declan Kiberd deal in some depth with 'identity politics' in Irish literature. RashersTierney (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Non English-language literatures from the 16th century to the 19th century

There a number of writers included in this section, such as Walter Scott and Robert Burns, who use Scots (also writers using Ulster Scots). Aren't they in the wrong place? Rwood128 (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

They're C18th/C19th writers using non-English language(s). Of course, if this article reverted to a chronological treatment (or treatment by movement) and abandoned the attempt to divide the literatures by language, we wouldn't have to cover e.g. Romanticism, Post-Modernism, separately for non-English and English. And the case of writers using English for narrative and vernacular for reported speech (a genre which has parallels in other lesser-used language literatures) would be much easier to deal with. Man vyi (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather puzzled by the description of Walter Scott and others, as "writers using non-English language(s)"; I'd even include Hugh Macdiarmid as writing in a version of English. Is there a nationalist or linguistic position that Scots is a separate Germanic language? --still Walter Scott? The use of the word Scots makes the geographic, cultural and linguistic differences clear.

I was working towards some major revisions that would combine English and non-English language sections, but wonder if there would be objections?

Rwood128 (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly a widespread view. The relevant governments take a different view (as quoted at Scots language: "the Scottish Executive recognises and respects Scots (in all its forms) as a distinct language"). Walter Scott wrote primarily in English, but his use of Scots dialogue is one of the most high profile literary uses of Scots familiar outside Scotland - besides Burns - I'd suggest. But all this unnecessary splitting of a dialect continuum wouldn't be necessary if you were able to merge the language sections into a chronological narrative. From my point of view, I'm interested in the mutual influences between the literatures of the isles, and I was not favourable to the unhistorial splitting of content when that occurred. Man vyi (talk) 07:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've got a few days clear and a pile of reference material stored up and I may in the next week get round to some shifting around to integrate the literatures in a more chronological way. Any thoughts or objections? What about children's literatures and genre literatures (crime, science fiction....); would it be better to try and keep them awkwardly within a chronological treatment, or to distinguish by sub-section? Man vyi (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, I've done some shovel-work to remove the split by languages, so that now we can hopefully concentrate on knocking Romanticism, Modernism, Post-Modernism and the various cultural revivals etc into some shape. Man vyi (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Most interested to see the work that you are doing. I have some questions but will hold them, but for one, until I'm sure that you have finally finished. I'm puzzled by the heading "Modernism and revivalism" -- and neither Google nor my reference works help. Wikipedia defines it solely in relation to religion. You can't be just referring to the Scottish Renaissance? Rwood128 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. Yes, that heading is a problem to be dealt with. Having moved the Scottish Renaissance and Cornish revival material to roughly chronological position, it struck me that the turn of the century was in the middle of the Celtic revival, and some sort of more comprehensive heading would be helpful. Not sold on it though: how about something along the lines of "Modernism and cultural revivals"? All questions welcome, whenever you feel like asking! Man vyi (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's an improvement, but a preamble, explaining the heading, is needed -- I'm also curious about the relation between cultural revivalism and modernism. Another question: why were Yeats and Eliot deleted? -- I partially restored Yeats earlier. They are too central to be excluded because they are not English, if that is the explanation? In fact it now strikes me that Pound should also be mentioned.

The heading "The rise of the novel" is certainly more interesting than the original, but it carries the suggestion that it deals with the history of the novel from Defoe, and even earlier (see Novel: section Rise of the novel). There's also Ian Jack's book with that title. Rwood128 (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I was pruning Yeats, because he turned up in C19th, C20th, Celtic Revival etc - in trying to amalgamate the various mentions, I may have over-pruned hastily. Yes, please put Eliot back if he was caught in the crossfire, too. "The rise of the novel" probably should go earlier as a heading, with perhaps something like "The development of the novel", "The triumph of the novel" or "The spread of the novel" to characterise C19th novels? And Pound, yes indeed - I've been feeling the lack of the Vorticists, Wyndham Lewis, et al, in the article. On the other hand, the para on children's book illustrators seems rather out of place in a literature article. With the article rearranged in what to my mind is a more logical order, I think it's easier to spot the lacunae and repetitions. I'll carry on working - thanks for the comments. Man vyi (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Non English language literatures since 1900

Are there any objections to deleting this section and integrating the material with English language literature? Rwood128 (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wales

This sub-section seems misplaced. Is it needed? Where does it belong? Rwood128 (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest merging it into the intro with the explanation of identity, "Celtic fringe" etc. Man vyi (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Current revisions

The modernism section 1901-45 seems to be too fragmented; to take one example, the opening sentence mentions Hardy and Hopkins but the expected discussion of Hopkins comes somewhat later. Also among other things the Georgian poets should be earlier. I can work on this section but don't want to interfere with any work in progress. I find the new, non-stodgy headings interesting, though I presume that some are temporary. Rwood128 (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, needs some organisation. I've been considering whether to arrange by novels and poetry - and I'll go ahead and do that as part of my last blast for now. The headings should be helpful signposts for the reader - once consensus has been at work for a while, we'll see how temporary they turn out to be. Man vyi (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, I think that's me done for now. I've signposted novels and poetry more clearly, and provided sections for WWI and WWII which seem to bracket the first half of the 20th century (although Edwardian literature, if there is such a thing, could paper over the uneasy junction between late Victorian and early 20th century). Suggestions for further work: Postmodernism and the development of the novel into the 21st century; more on late 20th century poetry of England; more on the short story and drama in late 20th century. Since I have some other things to do for a while, I'll leave other capable hands to tidy up after me and amend as necessary. Man vyi (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Lots of valuable work and much to think about. On the subject of headings, I find the two headings "The birth of romanticism" and "Romanticism" confusing, and in fact wondered, earlier, if you planned to be truly bold and combine the pre-Romantics with the Romantics? Otherwise is origins for birth better, or more simply "Pre-Romantics"? Adding dates would also help clarify the ambiguity. Rwood128 (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I sat on the fence with Romanticism. So how about something like "Roots of Romanticism"? Man vyi (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Rwood128 (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Caledonian Antisyzygy.

The reference to the Caledonian Antisyzygy 'hangs in the air' and is confusing. I've made a link but that doesn't help. Rwood128 (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Added some definition. Could be removed if it's not helpful. Man vyi (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Heading: "From the Renaissance to a United Kingdom"

Firstly doesn't this heading need dates? Is it alluding to the beginning of the reign of King James I? Secondly some content included under the main heading, for example the discussion of Shakespeare, belongs in the "Elizabethan and Jacobean" subsection. And thirdly, does the subheading "Caroline, Interregnum and Restoration periods" need to be separated from this main heading? I can try and sort this out. Rwood128 (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've provided some context. There would seem some logic in terms of the construction of Britishness to provide an arc to the creation of the UK of GB, even though in literary terms it doesn't form a dividing line. Man vyi (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Need for a map?

A map would be helpful at the beginning of this article (and later?). The ideal one would clearly designate the regions. However, a quick search failed to locate anything totally suitable. Rwood128 (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

As inclusive maps of the isles go, this one seems the best available. Man vyi (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is not about 'the isles'. It is about a genre of literature. Maps, no more than flags, do not belong. RashersTierney (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I just thought that someone not from the British Isles might find a map helpful (probably some from the UK as well). Both the Norton and Longman anthologies of literature, for example, provide a map. This article does emphasise the various constituent parts and languages of the UK. The suggested map is suitable looks fine. But maybe there are other objectors? Rwood128 (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC).

I now realize that there is a problem with this the map because it includes The Irish Republic as part of the British Isles and doesn't emphasize the political division between Britain and Ireland. I therefore think that we'll need to look for another map. Rwood128 (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

But as it's an svg, all the text is editable (and the resulting file can be renamed to something neutral). BTW there is no political division between Britain and Ireland - there's a geographical division between Great Britain and Ireland (two different islands), and a political division between Ireland (Republic of Ireland) and the United Kingdom (two different states) and the CDs (self-governing jurisdictions in a personal union with the Crown). Since what this article is dealing with is the complicated overlapping literatures and literary cultures of the isles, a map may well be helpful to the unaware to locate the spheres of activity (the Lake District and Cornwall would be helpful additions, perhaps). Mind you, if a map is going to cause more hassle than it's worth (and having gone to lengths in the text to avoid talking about the British Isles except where sources oblige), other maps are but a click away. Man vyi (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps an appropriate navigation sidebar would be of more benefit for readers interested in literature than a map, which is probably more useful if navigating the North Sea? The literature portal might be able to help out. RashersTierney (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Man vyi (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Something along the lines of the one at French literature, as a starting point for discussion? RashersTierney (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand this map phobia; I just thought that there were readers who would like to know where Jersey, Cornwall, the Isle of Man, Wales, Scotland, etc. were. But on the other hand let's not waste time in hassle. The portal may be a reasonable compromise. Rwood128 (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Would the recent map -- now deleted -- be acceptable if it was labelled as British Isles and Ireland, or British and Irish Isles, or map of U.K. and the Republic of Ireland? Though this is a very ugly map (sorry), because of the annotation.

A map, similar to this would be useful. Can't some compromise be found? Rwood128 (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This map was added to help any readers who are not already informed about the British Isles and its various parts; the map mentioned above has very pale text on a pale background so the boldly labelled map seemed more useful. There is no consensus that a map must not be included. It is more useful to have a map here rather than expect readers to follow links to other articles about these islands.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be about literature, not a potted geography lesson. I've tentatively started a navbar based on the French literature equivalent. It's at the very early stages, but contributions welcome. RashersTierney (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As User:Rwood128 said "someone not from the British Isles might find a map helpful (probably some from the UK as well). Both the Norton and Longman anthologies of literature, for example, provide a map. This article does emphasise the various constituent parts and languages of the UK." Including a map is relevant to the purpose of this article as literature has been written by people from various different territories. The side panel outline is also a good idea.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see what it would address that the links already provided don't, but do you have a particular map of the UK in mind? RashersTierney (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The map I already added seemed the most informative among those in the same category on Commons but from the objections above it it not acceptable at present. If there was agreement about how it should be revised and an editor agreed to do that there could be a discussion on whether to include it.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Such a map would indicate that this article is about the literature of the British Isles, which it isn't. If consensus is that it should be, fine, but rename accordingly. RashersTierney (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't fully understand the last comment, but if the map was labelled Britain and Ireland, or my preference UK and Irish Republic, would that help to resolve this matter? The British Isles article also mentions that the Atlantic Archipelago is increasingly favoured by academia, but that would be more appropriate for an article on Geography or geology. Rwood128 (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"UK and Irish Republic" would exclude the other countries. However, I don't see the need for labelling political entities at all. If a map is needed, it's to help with locating literary activity, answering questions such as for example: where has literature in Scots been composed? where are the major places mentioned in the article? where is the Lake District (inspiration for the Lake Poets)? Where was Anglo-Norman literature written?... Basically what would be most helpful is a linguistic/literary map - or perhaps a small number of maps - specific to illustrating an article about British literature(s). Man vyi (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If a map which includes the Republic of Ireland would mislead readers the map could just represent its territory as a outline, while Northern Ireland was like the rest of the map. Marking Cornwall would also be useful as it is the home of one of the Celtic literatures. Any map has the problem that the article covers many centuries during which the names of teritories have changed but possibly another map could show the same area at the time of the earliest Welsh literature when Celtic kingdoms existed in England and Scotland.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Whitby

Orkney

Jersey

Isle of Man

Lake District

London

Edinburgh

Cornwall

Guernsey

Edinburgh

Derry

Stratford upon Avon

Aberdare

Taking comments on board, I've been playing around with a map (see right). The base map is politically neutral, I hope, and I've superimposed a sample of locations as examples (Whitby for Caedmon and Bram Stoker, Aberdare for the 1st National Eisteddfod of Wales, Derry for Joyce Cary, Seamus Heaney etc, Stratford for Shakespeare...). It would need captions, perhaps some shading for languages, and could very well be incorporated in a nav sidebar as proposed above. Any suggestions? Man vyi (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

isles/Isles/British Isles/British and Irish Isles?

More good additions, but I was struck, when I read the latest addition for George Buchanan, by the use of the word "isles". Because Buchanan is a Scot I presumed it referred to the Isles. When I checked further I found the term used frequently in the article, and that it refers to either the British Isles, or British and Irish Isles. Certainly in a Scottish context it is confusing. I note the earlier comment about avoiding the term British Isles, but shouldn't isles be capitalized? -- but that can create the ambiguity. Doesn't this use need to be clarified? Rwood128 (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The British Isles naming dispute strikes again. My fault for trying to avoid unnecessary controversy. The source (Scottish) refers to "British Isles", and I paraphrased for harmony. Yes, in this context "Isles" should have the capital, I think. Man vyi (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that your were trying to be diplomatic, and felt bad at quibbling. Still capitalizing doesn't solve the problem, where confusion with the Scottish Isles is possible. Cannot British Isles, or United Kingdom, or Britain be used in place of the current isles, depending on the context, without causing offence? Rwood128 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, on further thought I realize your difficulty with Buchanan (and presumably other cases) and perhaps Scotland is the only choice in this context, even if unsatisfactory? Rwood128 (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Isles" gets disconcerting down here in the Channel Islands when used by visiting Irish politicians! In this article, I think it is clear that "British Isles" cannot be used without causing distractions; the "UK" is anachronistic and exclusionary for most of the period under discussion (and even when not anachronistic, its use to refer to the "UK of GB and I" would certainly provoke); "Britain" is ambiguous, but there are some instances in the article as it now stands where the modern UK is clearly meant, and substitutions should occur. Mind you, anyone reading the article would, I think, understand which "Isles" are referred to generally. Man vyi (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just realized that the disambiguation page for Isles includes the following: "these Isles or the Isles alternate formulation of British Isles (see also British Isles naming dispute)". I suggest that it would be helpful to link "Isles" with this page. Rwood128 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not happy with the phrase 'the Isles'. Doesn't the substitution of this phrase, for the earlier one, need to be explained? I note that the possible alternative British and Irish Isles is apparently a synonym for British Isles. I'd suggest at least, revise the opening preamble to the article as follows:

• Irish writers have played an important part in the development of literature in England and Scotland, but though the whole of Ireland was politically part of the United Kingdom between January 1801 and December 1922, it is controversial to describe Irish literature as British. For some this includes works by authors from Northern Ireland. Also, because of possible objections, the phrase 'the Isles' is used in this article in place of the earlier 'the British Isles'.

Still to this (dated individual?) the phrase 'the Isles' sounds odd (quaint?) and doesn't make me automatically think of what is meant, but rather the Hebrides, Orkneys, etc. But is there any more satisfactory alternative? Rwood128 (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• • Perhaps linking Isles to the British Isles naming dispute page, as follows, would be helpful: the Isles

-- I suggested this before, but didn't know how to do it then. Rwood128 (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Definition of British literature -- the first sentence

I was initially puzzled by the request for a citation, that is associated with the first sentence of this article. But the sentence tangled and confusing; the punctuation in particular needs fixing. I'm reluctant to attempt a fix without feedback (I just focussed on the one sentence).Rwood128 (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

In fact the opening paragraph as a whole, all three sentences, need attention, and there is also the question of why a citation is need for the second sentence?Rwood128 (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The use of the phrase English literature is a problem, because this includes American and Commonwealth literature, i.e. all literature written in English. I suggest changing to: <British literature refers to literature associated with the United Kingdom, Isle of Man and Channel Islands. This includes literature from England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, etc.> Though isn't Irish literature before 1922 British. And to what does the etc refer? I also suggest that citations are not needed. Rwood128 (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a rewrite is probably in order. Citations, I would have thought, aren't necessary for leads that are defining the scope of the article (where the subsequent discussion of varying definitions should cover the case). The "etc" was to cover Cornish literature and others that are from England but not part of English literature as defined. The case of Irish literature pre-1922 is delicate: the whole island of Ireland was part of the British Islands, but now only Northern Ireland is. Should something along the lines of "the waxing and waning of the British Empire has involved changes in the allegiance of writers and the extent of British literature as a label" be incorporated? Man vyi (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This may not help to solve the problem but should anything be said about Old English Literature (also known as Anglo-Saxon Literature)? Though commonly known as "Old English" it is written in a different language but it is from England just as much as Middle English and Modern English Literature were before modern English began to be written outside England. There are also Anglo-Norman (12th cent. ff.) and Latin (until the 17th cent.) literatures in existence in England alongside Middle & Modern English ones.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the following acceptable?

• British literature refers to literature associated with the United Kingdom, Isle of Man and Channel Islands. This includes literature from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. By far the largest part of British literature is written in the English language, including early forms of English such as Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman, etc. In addition there are bodies of written works in Latin, Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Scots, Cornish, Manx, Jèrriais, Guernésiais. Northern Ireland has a literary tradition in English, Ulster Scots and Irish. Irish writers have played an important part in the development of English-language literature and, prior to 1922, the whole of Ireland was politically part of Britain. Rwood128 (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

N.B. Anglo-Norman is Norman French i.e. the Old French dialect of Normandy (used in England post-1066). I hope to give more attention to this tomorrow.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As an Anglo-Norman myself, I agree. I'd also suggest focusing on literatures rather than countries and languages so readers could go most directly to relevant literature articles. How about: "British literature refers to literature associated with the United Kingdom, Isle of Man and Channel Islands. This includes literatures from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. By far the largest part of British literature has been written in the English language, with English literature developing from Anglo-Saxon literature to a global cultural expression. In addition the story of British literature involves writings in Latin, Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Anglo-Norman, Scots, Cornish, Manx, Jèrriais, Guernésiais and other languages. Literature in Northern Ireland includes writings in in English, Ulster Scots and Irish. The waxing and waning of the British Empire has involved changes in the allegiance of writers and the extent of British literature as a label. As a consequence of the disputed political and cultural relationships between Britain and Ireland over hundreds of years, Irish writers have played an important part in the development of literature in England and Scotland, but since 1922 Irish literature has developed a separate identity." Man vyi (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The only part of your text I have concern about is "with English literature developing from Anglo-Saxon literature to a global cultural expression". However the lead must fairly summarise the content of the rest of the article and preferably suggest the same version of the history of "English literature" as that article does.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, though I prefer more direct, concrete language, in some places. The following are suggestions for substitute sentences that might be incorporated:

• (1) By far the largest part of British literature has been written in the English language, with literature in English developing from Anglo-Saxon literature to a global phenomenon, because of its use in the former colonies of Britain, including the USA.
• (2) While the whole of Ireland was politically part of Britain before1922, it can be controversial to describe Irish literature, other than from Northern Ireland, as British.

The only part of your text I have concern about is "with English literature developing from Anglo-Saxon literature to a global cultural expression". (cont'd) For me this is so brief that it may not satisfy everybody. Calling what had until then been called the Anglo-Saxon language the Old English language by some scholars in the 19th century was not accepted by other scholars. Since then there has been a great amount of specialised study in this field. The modern English language does not begin until after the introduction of printing to England by William Caxton (ca. 1473). In that period legal literature still used Norman French, there was no translation of the whole Bible into English until late in Henry VIII's reign, and theological writing was in Latin.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I take it that your argument is, that while the English language has its beginnings with Anglo-Saxon, the English literary tradition really only begins in the 14th century, with writers such as Chaucer, Langland, Wycliff, the Gawain poet, and Medieval drama, and not with the Anglo-Saxon epic-poem Beowulf? Actually 100+ years before 1471. The use of the phrase "developing from" is certainly debatable. I'll see if I can come up with a solution. Rwood128 (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC) In fact I went and made a couple of changes (the sentence re Wales seemed out of place).Rwood128 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Much improved and clarified. I've just put the lists in alphabetical order (seems only logical way to present them) except for opening list of territories (where it would seem unhelpful to put the UK last simply for the sake of neutral alphabetical order). Man vyi (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Definition of BrLit; further observations

......**This last version of the lead looks better than the former ones. The Old English / Anglo-Saxon usage is a problem since different academic institutions name their departments with one, while others do the opposite. At Oxford University the "Honours School of English Language and Literature" included Old English, Middle English and Modern English philology; Old English, Middle English and Modern English literature; and a range of options such as Old Norse, Old French, Literary Criticism, &c. (as I remember it only Chaucer, Gower & Langland could not be avoided), to that paper would be added various assortments ranging from a medieval more philological set, to a modern and literary set ending at 1900). Other universities have different methods and many of the pioneers in the field were Germans or Scandinavians rather than Englishmen (e.g. Karl Brunner, Fr. Klaeber). The study of Anglo-Saxon texts begins with those who collected (e.g. Matthew Parker) what they could from the dispersal of the monastic libraries under Henry VIII. The universities of Oxford and Cambridge have endowed professorships of Anglo-Saxon: Oxon from 1795, Cantab from 1878.

What makes this very difficult is that "Britain", "England", "Scotland" have meant various territories at different periods of history. "Britain" has become the short form for the UK of GB & NI; "England" means less now than it did at various earlier periods. Until 1800 Ireland was a kingdom whose King was also King of England, Scotland, &c. For English literature there are three periods: (1) Anglo-Saxon literature beginning as Northumbrian, Mercian, Kentish and ending with late West Saxon which becomes the standard language because of the power of the Kings of Wessex but does not continue much further than the late 11th cent. (2) Middle English literature where there is no standard language and each region keeps more or less to its own dialect (3) only after the introduction of printing does the Middle English of Middlesex develop into a new standard language (Modern English) so that Tudor literature can grow. --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There's much the same problem with other concepts such as French literature (which has claimed writings predating the emergence of a standard French language from territories which were not part of the kingdom of France at the time; plus of course there are non-Francophone literatures from within the territory of France...). The existence of what are regarded now as cross-border cultures/territories such as Dál Riata and the pre-1204 Anglo-Norman commonwealth mean that no clear-cut single spatial definition is uncontestable. I think the question for an encyclopaedic article must be something like this: "I want to know something about 'British literature': what are the main agreed facts and what are the uncertainties and controversies?" BTW, I think the Old English section could do with an overhaul. Man vyi (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Question re the heading: From the Renaissance to the Union of England and Scotland 1500-1707?

The above heading has a different historical focus than some of the the others used in this article, and most importantly the end date doesn't fit with the next heading, "Neoclassicism: 1689-1798". How can this best be resolved? Would a separate section, drawing attention to the important event of 1707, comparable say to the early one titled "British identity", be acceptable, and a more traditional heading then applied to this section? Furthermore doesn't Neoclassicism begin in 1660? Rwood128 (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I now realize that a section referring to the year 1707 exists, titled The "invention of British literature".

1700-1798: The Augustan Age, etc.

There are too many headings surely? It is confusing.

• Suggestions:
  • Make 4.2.1 part of the preamble --no heading.
  • Then have three main sub-headings, simply labelled: Prose and the novel; Poetry; Drama.
  • Move 4.3, The Scottish Enlightenment to the next section 4.4.
  • Change the heading of 4.4 to something like the Age of sensibility, or Age of Johnson, so that it isn't just pre-Romantic, or are there pre-Romantic elements in the Scottish Enlightenment?

Rwood128 (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It also looks like most major works of the Scottish Enlightenment were published after 1750. Rwood128 (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

'Developments in poetry' section

This is section that doesn't really fit. Shouldn't the authors be moved into their appropriate sections? -- the weaver poets, for example, seem to belong in pre-Romantics, while Barnes is a Victorian. Rwood128 (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

British literature/English literature duplication

It is my opinion that the two articles, English literature and British literature is in serious need of some kind of reorganisation. I will also add this comment on English literature, and I would like to suggest that discussion of it take place there (for the sake of centralising discussion in one place).

At the moment, we have two articles duplicating large quantities of information (WP:CONTENTFORK), both of which are far too long (WP:LENGTH). This is, I think, a problem, because these article ordinarily ought to be a succinct summary and useful introduction to the topics concerned, probably stating important developments and especially important individuals, not descriptions of every single literary figure ever to live in Britain/write in English. Ideally it also ought to be a useful and functional place from which to navigate the more detailed articles on English-language literature.

The duplication is also a problem partly because the articles have been duplicated in large parts, to the extent that the originally duplicated material has diverged. So, for instance, British literature has more discussion of women authors; and there is more detail (say) on Dryden in English literature than British literature. There is no particular logic to such distinctions: they merely seem to be based on which article some particular editor happened to choose to edit.

Most of the specialised articles that are linked to are, as they ought to be, more detailed than the sections of this article that they correspond to. A major exception to this is Elizabethan literature, which has substantially less information than the equivalent (duplicated) section of this article, despite presumably being supposed to be the main article.

What I think should be done is:

• The detailed information present in each section at the moment should be moved to the detailed articles on the topics, where it is not already present in the detailed articles.
• Each section should be replaced with a succinct summary mentioning the very most important literary personages and developments of the period in question. (If short summaries are duplicated, although it may not be quite ideal, this doesn't present such a problem - although I think preferably the "British" article should keep its partly Welsh/Scottish slant.)

I think this is sensible, and I would be happy to begin to carry it out. I leave this here, though, to start off a discussion on the subject, and to suggest that people might put other ideas forward about these issues. I won't do anything for a few weeks, though, to leave time for discussion.

I think it is highly necessary to do something, though, to make these articles more useable, given they are both Top-importance articles with considerable structural problems. Please comment in Talk:English literature#English literature/British literature duplication. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Re the idea of reducing the length of the article and having briefer summaries, would it not be a good idea to create a new article, 20th Century British literature – moving the content from here and replacing it with a much shorter section? See also English literature Talk [1]. Rwood128 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Just commenting here to mention to anyone passing that this discussion continues at the English literature talk. I think it would probably be best to have just one new article for 20th century English literature, and leave the surplus information (i.e. the stuff not duplicated between the two articles, especially about literature in the Celtic languages) here, for the moment? Dionysodorus (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Re the question of making this, and the English literature, article more concise. I'm working on creating a new article, Twentieth-Century English literature. This will be a copy of the existing section from the English literature article, which will be then be replaced with a précis. Rwood128 (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

To clarify what has already been said and make a new proposal:

This article duplicates the discussion in English literature, and the various articles that cover the literature of the other languages of Britain, Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, etc. I therefore propose replacing the current content of British literature with a brief survey of the differences between English literature and British literature. Such a revision would have more of an historical focus and leave most of the discussion of actual literature to the various main articles.

This would in effect be a partial merging with "English literature", though a skeleton "British literature" article would continue to exist. Rwood128 (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Dionysodorus, Johnbod, it appears to me, on further thought, that the only real obstacle to merging of British literature with English literature is the coverage here of Literature in the other languages of Britain. I therefore suggest that an article with that title, or the like, should be created, using material from the article. This seems better than my previous suggestion, directly above. Rwood128 (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless there are objections I will remove any discussion of literature in the other languages of Britain from this article and at the same time create the new article (it's in my sandbox). The the lede here will then to be revised to reflect the change. This will prepare the way to merge the two articles – indeed further emphasise the need. That of course is a more daunting task and it may well take longer than is usual with a merge.

Literature in the various dialects of English, including, Scots (which is sometimes treated as a separate language), should be left in British literature.

Proposed revised lede

British literature is literature in the English language from the United Kingdom, Isle of Man, and Channel Islands. The article Literature in the other languages of Britain discusses the literatures written in the other languages that are, and have been used in Britain. There are also articles on these various literatures: Latin literature in Britain, Anglo-Norman, Cornish, Guernésiais, Jèrriais, Latin, Manx, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, etc.

Rwood128 (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The article Literature in the other languages of Britain has been created. When it has been reviewed I will delete the material duplicated here. Rwood128 (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Re Elizabethan literature see [2].

On further thought, it would be simpler to add relevant excess detail to English drama and English poetry, English novel rather than creating a new article. Rwood128 (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on British literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150525120906/http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/060615.shtml to http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/060615.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090508080933/http://www.hlss.mmu.ac.uk:80/english/staff/profile.php?id=146 to http://www.hlss.mmu.ac.uk/english/staff/profile.php?id=146
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060826083707/http://www.iomonline.co.im:80/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1143&ArticleID=1397570 to http://www.iomonline.co.im/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1143&ArticleID=1397570

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on British literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120212222859/http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/1051.html to http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/1051.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080926023920/http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk:80/ScotLit/ASLS/Poet_for_Scotland.html to http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/ScotLit/ASLS/Poet_for_Scotland.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110901205624/http://www.radicalacademy.com:80/adiphiljewish2.htm to http://www.radicalacademy.com/adiphiljewish2.htm#Berachyah

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

18th century British literature in the United States

Re your recent edit Hendrick 99 to the British literature page, I'd respectfully suggest that this section belongs more appropriately in the Augustan literature and/or American literature articles than in British literature. If anything is included within British literature it should just be a very concise summary. Please see the discussion on the Talk pages, for British literature and English literature article, about excessive length and detail. Rwood128 (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Revert made and the original article restored. There was in fact no reference to a merge on the original Talk page.Rwood128 (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Genre fiction

I have moved the content of the section on 19th-century genre fiction to the main article Genre fiction. I plan to prune the existing section here (which has too much detail for this article). The 20th-century section also requires similar editing. There is a lack of substance in the Genre fiction article and the material in British literature should help to improve it. Both sections have been moved, etc. Rwood128 (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The material on children literature, from within the original two "Genre fiction" sections, has now been also copied to the article Children's literature. It has been suggested that it probably should be deleted from "Genre fiction" –– Done. Rwood128 (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Rwood128 (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Scottish literature

See comment on English literature Talk [[3]]. I suggest that in this article only briefly discuss major figures, leaving the fuller discussion to the various Scottish literature articles. Rwood128 (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

See also the lede for Literature in the other languages of Britain "Literature in Anglo-Saxon (Old English) is treated as English literature and literature in Scots as Scottish literature."

Rwood128 (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge with English literature

Re the discussion of duplication above, the idea of merging this article into English literature was suggested in June. However, I'll now formerly propose the idea. This involves the acceptance of the shorter, more succinct English literature as the preferred version, and the copying of any author/topic of major importance found here but missing from English literature. Is this acceptable?

Following recent changes to the lede of this article, the two articles now cover the same subject matter, but for the inclusion in English literature of a brief discussion of 19th century American literature, Irish literature after 1922, and a few 20th century writers from the Commonwealth of Nations. Rwood128 (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have suggested that the merge should be made within fourteen days on the talk page of English literature[4] Rwood128 (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

There has been no subsequent objections, but on the other hand there has been no support for the proposed merger. Because of this, and because a thorough review of both articles is needed before the merge could take place, I suggest that the merge banners should be removed. Rwood128 (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

British literature in English

The title of this article should perhaps now be British literature in English, following recent changes, and the creation of Literature in the other languages of Britain. Rwood128 (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

On further thought this change would just create confusion. Rwood128 (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081225172227/http://www.magakernow.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=38590 to http://www.magakernow.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=38590
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141215222935/http://www.scifidimensions.com/Nov03/arcturus.htm to http://www.scifidimensions.com/Nov03/arcturus.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)