| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| The Lithgae Jambo |
Scottish literature no longer exists in its own rightThe US Library of Congress have plans to reclassify the works of Scots such as RLS, John Buchan and Sir Walter Scott as a subsection of English literature. The move means Scottish literature will no longer have its own section in the world's biggest library.The classification is based on country of origin, not language - or else Americans such as Mark Twain and F Scott Fitzgerald would be contained within a "US" section. Following complaints, a spokesman for the library said it would be reconsidering the controversial decision. Scottish Culture Minister Linda Fabiani has pledged to raise the matter with the US Congress. Too right ! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7157708.stm |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
|
||||||||||
| SLG |
I know Americans have a bad reputation for being able to tell the difference between countries, but I'd have though that the Library of Congress might. Perhaps they should see if their library holds an atlas. | ||||||||||
| inga |
Well there's no need for the heavenward glance just yet. If indeed the library's classification is based on "country of origin" then the conscious decision to reclassify Scots lit as "English[country]" would be just plain wrong. Or, if they really wanted to keep Scots lit united with English lit they could just rename thier section "British lit". At least neither decision is as bad as then "Scottish" section of Scottish bookstores. ~Inga |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
It wasn't aimed at the Library of Congress. The library are perfectly well qualified to arrange their volumes any way that suits them. It was provoked by the feeble assumption that library classification is something to get upset about.
Yes. Dismal places mainly. |
||||||||||
| The Lithgae Jambo |
Meanwhile, back home...
"Leading literary organisations have written to Scotland's exam body calling for Scots literature and language to be made a mandatory part of the English Higher. Although Scottish literature used to be a compulsory element of the exam, that requirement was removed in 2001 as part of efforts to streamline the qualification." http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/n...ut_at_heart_of_English_Higher.php If we can't show our language the respect we think it deserves, perhaps we shouldn't criticise the Library of Congress. |
||||||||||
| Economist |
It seems a pretty mad move. There's no such thing as "British literature" except in the fevered imaginations of the evangelist unionists and for Scottish literature to be classified as a subsection of English Literature is technically wrong too. Unless of course US, Canadian, Australian and all other English language literature is being places in the aforementioned sub section too. Then of course classification would be based upon language, rather than country of origin, which would be fair and accurate. | ||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Why? It's in English isn't it? Or are we now all pretending that Scots write some language other than English too?
Can a library classification be unfair? |
||||||||||
| The Lithgae Jambo |
Rather selective quoting, there surely ? The next sentence is an important qualifier::
|
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
No it isn't. The classification of Canadian literature has no relevance whatsoever to the classification of literature from any other place. Whichever arrangement is most convenient for the library is theirs to adopt as they see fit. Getting your knickers in a twist over some perceived slight to your national honour is childish nonsense. | ||||||||||
| Economist |
*Sigh*
The only person getting their knickers in twist on the issue, agentmancuso is your own self, not anyone else. In answer to your questions, I suggest you read what I wrote again, instead of imagining incinuations that aren't there.
I think it is perfectly clear and quite unassailable. |
||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Ah, the good old 'if I can't be racist publicly, simply deny the other culture exists' manner of thought. It is, of course, unsustainable to suggest that somehow Scottish literature can exist, let British literature cannot. In fact, it's ludicrous. Interestingly, there are 1,250,000 Google results for "British literature" and a mere 96,000 for "Scottish literature". Must be a lot of those 'evangelist unionists' out there, eh? Really, I don't know how such bigotry and prejudice survives in the modern day. |
||||||||||
| mairead |
Will Mark Twain and other American novels become part of English literature then.
Can't have it all ways you know. |
||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Ah, but they can. I suppose that's what some people here are rather annoyed about. |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
They are part of English literature. It may not suit the Library of Congress to catalogue them as such, but so what? It's up to them to sort their library the way that suits them. It's no-one else's business. Least of all fragile identity-obsessives thousands of miles away. |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I'm not the one crying bitter tears of (utterly fake) injured pride because those damn foreigners don't appreciate just how important my identity is.
You think wrongly. The method by which the library catalogues books from one country has no essential impact on how it catalogues books from another. None. Getting upset about it is no different from the savages who lock up people because they don't like the names given to their teddy bears. It's the same hysterical crap about insulting tribal pride. |
||||||||||
| mairead |
I for one, am very proud of MY identity and of my homeland. Pity more folk are not so proud of who they are and from whom they came, and if I was to shed any tears it woiuld be for those who have no pride in their nation, whichever nation they belong to.. | ||||||||||
| Rinty |
I think this is crazy and fabiani will make a total fool of herself if she contacts the congress.
So what if a novel written by a scottish science fiction author ends up in "science fiction - English". Is our science fiction writing in this country so prolific and of high enough quality to justify a sub-section for scottish science fiction in an international library? Robert Loius Stevensons books are not 'scottish' books, they are books that were written by someone who is scottish. I can see why Liz and Ian Rankin would object but making this a political issue or getting upset about it is disturbingly tribal. I dont understand the problem. Would we claim 'gullivers travels' as being irish literature simply because it was written by someone born in Ireland? I wonder what we are saying here? Robert Louis Stevenson spent his early years in Scotland, got most of his inspiration from his travels, wrote most of his work when living in France or America, and lived out his retirement in the South Pacific. If we claim his books as 'scottish' does that mean that a writer who comes from Pakistan to Scotland as a young man/woman and then spends the rest of his/her life in Scotland would never be considered part of 'scottish literature'? Would Fabiani want this persons work classified as 'pakistani' literature. |
||||||||||
| Anthropos |
It would have been good if this news had been received in the same way as Americans would have received news that the National Library of Scotland was reclassify American literature as a subsection of English literature, i.e. with complete indifference. I doubt the American equivalent of Liz Lochhead would be bleating about “cultural imperialism”. Sadly as a nation we clearly do not yet have that level of self confidence. How an American library catalogues its book is a matter for them, and if they find it more convenient this way that is their business.
Those who think British literature doesn’t exist betray a petty obsession with identity politics and clearly have little knowledge of either literature or how it is regarded in the United States. At an American university English historians like Gibbon, Macaulay and Froude are studied alongside Scottish ones like Carlyle and Mackintosh and this is very often done under the heading British Writers or British Literature which is perfectly sensible. To an American who is interested in Victorian literature but uninterested in the insecurities of some Scots, it makes sense to have Stevenson, Conan Doyle and J.M. Barrie on the same shelves as Dickens, Hardy and Kipling; there works are in the English language and they are from the same era and geographical area. The idea that they should be hived off into Scottish and English sections to appease the chronic insecurities of a few Scots is not surprisingly one which few are interested in. |
||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
I think people would have less of a problem with this if they actually did use the word British in that context rather than English. Even highly educated Americans seldom do so, however. Classifying Scottish literature as being English if geography is the basis for the literature classifications is just plain wrong and not the sort of mistake you expect to see being made by such a prestigious institution. | ||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Surely this must be a troll trying to bring nationalism into disrepute? |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
People would have less of a problem if they worried less about their 'identity'.
Not wrong, merely convenient from their point of view. Quite right too. |
||||||||||
| Holebender |
The part of the article many of you are missing is this;
The Library of Congress is the largest library on the planet. Where it leads others will surely follow. It's bad enough now having to explain to people that there is actually a difference between England and Scotland without major libraries around the world getting in on the act. |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
But you don't actually have to explain it at all. You could just rest securely in the knowledge, and leave the librarians of the world in peace. |
||||||||||
| Aventinian |
If only they had the same relaxed approach to the Scotsman's website. |
||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Scotland is not part of England. They are wrong to use this classification on the basis of geography, end of. I think most 8 year olds could grasp that. Do you have to try to introduce your Nat nut wind up agenda into every single thread on here? |
||||||||||
| Holebender |
No, I don't have to explain anything to anybody, but I can't abide ignorance and feel duty bound to my fellow man to dispel it wherever I find it. Does it make you feel superior to hear someone voice a mistaken belief while you secretly know the truth of the matter? |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
So what? Apart from the tiny number of volumes published in Gaelic, and the occasional oddity like Kenneth White's French stuff, every book written by a Scot is written in English, and therefore part of English literature. That's what English literature means: literature written in English. It's geographical origin is irrelevant from every angle, other than that of library convenience. |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
In other words your obsession with your own identity makes it difficult to avoid seizing the chance to reassert it at every turn.
It makes me feel superior to witness neurotics obsessing about irrelevances. |
||||||||||
| mairead |
No Agentmancuso
I am definately not a troll. By the way, Do you actually know the meaning of the word? |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
An ugly monster that lives under a bridge? | ||||||||||
| Holebender |
As is so often the case, agent, you are just wrong. Almost everyone I speak to in my travels is happy to learn something new, and grateful for having a misconception corrected. It's not an obsession on my part, any more than it would be an obsession if I corrected someone who made a mistake in arithmetic or grammar. | ||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Can you write better? If so, try. And we'll see you there. 
|
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Not necessarily dismal books, but dismal places i.e. the kitsch "Scottish" sections of most bookshops. I used to run various bookshops. None of them had a "Scottish" section though... |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Absolute nonsense. Both arithmetic and grammar are codified logical structures. There is nothing logical about 'nationality': it is purely contingent. |
||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
That's more a reflection of those bookshops than Scottish literature. WH Smith's Scottish sections are improving, but they're still "dismal". However, there's plenty of Scottish literature which isn't particularly dismal, but it all depends on what you're into. Even you must like some of it. |
||||||||||
| mairead |
Ah well, Agentmancuso,
I am definately not a troll then. Such a relief to know. |
||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Their classification system is based on geography not language. You better believe that they don't have Mark Twain and John Steinbeck classified under "English Literature". You should keep the obsession you have about Scots not being a language confined to the appropriate thread. That question isn't even relevant here. |
||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
"You better believe that they don't have Mark Twain and John Steinbeck classified under "English Literature"."
Do they have Margaret Atwood under American literature then? |
||||||||||
| Holebender |
Just how blind are you? I said Scotland is not part of England and I correct people who make the mistake of stating that it is. What have the physical landmasses of Scotland and England to do with nationality? If a statement is false (e.g. Scotland is a part of England) it is false, there is no contingency, no grey area, no possibly correct interpretation. Your bigoted anti-nationalism blinds you to so much. Your desperate attempts to paint all who have an interest in Scotland as raving weirdos drives you to try to bend even geography to your cause. Try engaging your brain sometimes before posting such sh!te. |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Really? Do they keep works by Simenon in a 'Belgian' section, or by Unamuno in 'Basque' section? I doubt it.
Oh but it is an exact parallel: people with identity issues taking the huff at an imagined offence. |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
You said that because Scotland is not part of England the classification of books by Scotsmen as 'English Literature' was a mistake. It isn't. It's exactly correct. All books by Scotsmen, with the exception of a handful of Gaelic authors and other singular exceptions, are English Literature. |
||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Come off it you are taking your anti-Scots language agenda to ridiculous extremes now and are getting dangerously close to self-parody. By that same yardstick Mark Twain and John Steinbeck would be classified as English literature and that's just not going to happen in the United States. They have a separate American Literature section for that. Have you ever actually been to a big library in North America? | ||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
"Oh but it is an exact parallel: people with identity issues taking the huff at an imagined offence."
I wouldn't worry. You have a more obvious identity issue than anyone else on this board. Apart from the demented pseudo-intellectual Messiah who lives in a chicken coop. You just pretend/think that you don't. |
||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
I dislike the phrase "English literature" for one very simple reason. It's ambiguous. "England's literature" and "English language literature" should be called such, and not conflated with one another as they frequently are, even by academics. By the way, before anyone accuses me of Anglophobia , I would apply the same yardstick to the phrases Spanish/French/German/Portuguese/Chinese/Russian literature for similar reasons.
Gogol, frequently dubbed a "Russian writer", is actually a Russian-language writer, who came from the Ukraine, and who despite living in Russia for much of his life, was influenced by his Ukrainian background throughout his career. The status of Ukrainian as a separate language, is of course highly controversial in itself. Other writers are a bit more complicated... Shaw deserves the tag of English literature more than Swift, due to his background and opinions, although both are of Anglo-Irish origin. TS Eliot, despite his American background, became a kind of naturalised Englishman, and fervent Anglophile. |
||||||||||
| Holebender |
Oh really? Perhaps you could quote the post in which I said classifying books by Scotsmen as 'English Literature' was a mistake. When you fail to find that particular quote, perhaps you will actually read what I write and reply to that in future. |
||||||||||
| mairead |
Radge,
I agree with you. As our language is, like it or not, known as English, it would be better to describe the books as of English literature or Scottish literature or whatever country uses the English language. I don't agree however, that holebender has an identity issue. Like me, he clearly knows who he is and from whom he came. That's just knowing your identity, and being proud of it, not having an issue about it. |
||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Why isn't English literature just described as "European literature"? After all, it's just a subset of it. | ||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Absolutely. It could well be if the library's requirements suited. Maybe in a Chinese university? |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
So what?
Does that surprise you?
Never been to America north or south. Probably never will unfortunately. |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
What makes you think that? |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Forgive me for thinking you had something to contribute to the debate, which is about classification of English literature. I should have known better: keep shouting about how different Scotland and England are, we're all listening
|
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Yes we know. 'Simple' is the right word.
Should be? You mean you'd like it to be?
It's a stupid reason. The only thing of any importance is the convenience of the library and its borrowers. The rest is drivel.
I'm guessing here, but maybe that's because he wrote in Russian? |
||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
If there are American and Canadian literature sections rather than having authors like John Steinbeck and Margaret Atwood located in a single English literature section for all books written in the English language then the classification should be British Literature if they want to have books by authors from Scotland and England on the same shelves. In the past they had a separate Scottish Literature classification now they don't. If they wanted to streamline things a bit having a British Literature section would have been the correct way to go about it given the fact that Scotland is clearly not part of England. The way they have chosen to streamline things is, therefore, incorrect from both a nationalist and a unionist perspective and the National Library of Scotland are well within their rights to take issue with it given the way that libraries around the world take their cue from prestigious institutions like this. |
||||||||||
| Holebender |
Forgive me for bothering to respond to you as you clearly only ever see what you want to see and rarely, if ever, actually read what contributors actually write. And don't think it has escaped anyone's notice that you failed to provide any sort of quote to back up what you claimed I had said. That's because no such quote exists. |
||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Your posts. (Well, you did ask!) |
||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Yes, it should be. Not just because of my personal opinion, but because in library indexing etc, ambiguity and vagueness is a definite no-no.
And because some people can't differentiate between a Russian speaker, and someone who is a Russian. Many people assume Gogol was a Russian.
Ambiguity is, of course, an inconvenience. When you look for X, you don't want to find Y. |
||||||||||
| mairead |
'English Language Literature' could solve the problem | ||||||||||
| Rinty |
If the filing system of a library thousands of miles away is a problem in the first place. | ||||||||||
| mairead |
Not really a problem, but I just think it's filing system may mislead many who use it into thinking that all the literature in the English literature section has been written by English writers, poets etc. | ||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
If people are that thick it's safe to assume they won't be reading much literature anyway. |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
There is neither ambiguity or vagueness here. Literature written by Scotsmen is English Literature. End of story.
What if they do? It is not the library's job to decide questions of nationality, but to arrange their volumes in a coherent manner. |
||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
If they do, they are plain ignorant. Are you autistic or something? Seems you talk to yourself sometimes. Saying the same thing over and over, doesn't make it right. The label "English literature" is ambiguous since "English" refers to both a language, and a people. Not hard to understand. It's not suitable for indexing. |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
They just have different priorities, such as arranging their volumes in a coherent manner. Flogging dead horses for the amusement of a handful of identity-obsessives isn't really their thing.
No more nor less suitable than 'Spanish' or 'French' or 'German', all of which exist happily, without anyone ever being in the least troubled by it. |
||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
"They just have different priorities, such as arranging their volumes in a coherent manner. Flogging dead horses for the amusement of a handful of identity-obsessives isn't really their thing."
It's not a dead horse, as one referendum and a number of elections continue to prove. It doesn't actually mean that much to me if Gogol was a Russian person or a Russian speaker... however, if I use a library, I want to find what I'm looking for. Anglo-Irish literature has very different themes and priorities from England's English language literature... "No more nor less suitable than 'Spanish' or 'French' or 'German', all of which exist happily, without anyone ever being in the least troubled by it." They don't exist happily. If I want to look for Austrian literature, I don't want to wade through 100 books from Germany, to get one book from Austria. |
||||||||||
| Rinty |
"Not really a problem, but I just think it's filing system may mislead many who use it into thinking that all the literature in the English literature section has been written by English writers, poets etc."
I dont think they will and it doesnt really matter anyway. Do the flashman novels really need to be in a 'scottish' section or does it matter that people think the author is english? My problem is more that a minster in the Scottish government is making a deal about this. It makes us look petty. If you read the article it is clear that it is mostly about sub-groups. Having a scottish sub section in science fiction etc might just be a ludicrous suggestion for a huge library. Would they have to have a catalan section, a basque section, a san marino sub section of italian science fiction? Writers in scotland should write to the library and/or a newspaper. It's in their interests to promote 'scottish' literature and the concept of such a thing, and they are quite right to want to make the library re-think. But for the govt it's just looks petty and nationalistic in my opinion. If I was browsing in that library i bet I would still find 'the house with the green shutters' and 'young adam' quite easily without it injuring my national pride. |
||||||||||
| mairead |
Yes, I also think the government should have more important matters to be attending to. I also agree that it is up to the writers etc. to do the protesting but I still think it is fairly misleading. Not everone knows who wrote what in the English language and that English Language Literature would solve the problem as opposed to English Literature, but hey, I guess it's up to them. | ||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
None of that has anything to do with the classification of literature.
Really? Goldsmith? Swift? Shaw? Joyce? Yeats? Banville? Toibin? Heaney? What possible unity can you find among such authors that transcends their differences from each other or their closeness with non-Irish English Literature?
Yes, but no-one who is the least bit interested in literature per se, German or otherwise, would waste time with such nonsense. |
||||||||||
| doodells |
Im sure many people interested in the literature from Pais Basque or Catalonia would see the importance of having the distinction between Spanish lit or Basque lit etc just as there should be a difference between Scottish and English lit. You show a lack of understanding here IMO. Literature is important because it is a product of a certain author and or their environment. I think people who are really into literature would prefer to have as clear distinctions as possible to help with their searches, studies and enjoyment of the lit. And when I studied German literature as part of my 2nd year elective in German at uni, it was a fundamentally important part of the disscusion to show you understood the history of Austrian Hungarian and Prussian empires and how the language had evolved out of that area and where the authors had came from. To be fair, the authors are all now classed as German but that is because the areas where many of the authors came from no longer exist. IMO it is too early to lose the distinction between Scottish lit and English lit. Maybe if Scotland is never again independent and it becomes more and more a 'region' of England, then it would make sense, but thats not going to happen. 
|
||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Unfortunately, the same argument can be directed at "English literature" practitioners. Not much good.
Rubbish! What if you wanted to research - for examples - portrayals of WWII and the Anschluss from an Austrian point of view in literature? You wouldn't go for German language literature in general. I am "the least bit interested in literature". In fact, I'm interested in it to an unhealthy level. I love literature... |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
It's impossible to ignore the difference between Spanish literature and Basque or Catalan literature. Spanish literature is written is Spanish. Basque literature is written in Basque. Catalan literature is written in Catalan. See how it works?
'should be'. Says it all.
With respect, the importance of literature has got f-all to do with its environment.
I'm sure the areas still exist, though the particular identity labels attached might have disappeared. Another clue... |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Of course it can. But the common ground is the language in which the authors happen to write, whatever their nationality, tribe, religion, or hairstyle. In the case of most Scottish (and Irish) writers this is English. Hence they are irrevocably a subset of English literature.
There is no such thing as 'an Austrian point of view' in literature. There may be the point of view of an individual Austrian author, or of various Austrian characters, but that is by no means the same thing. The only Austrian I know of is Musil. I get the impression he's important, but I doubt it's because of what he says about the Anschluss.
And yet you spend your time promoting tribalism? Such a waste. Back to the bookshelves with you! |
||||||||||
| Rinty |
It is obvious that some scots writers have more in common with what would be called english literature than they do with other scots writers.
For someone who loves literarure would you classify Fraser's Flashman books alongside James Kelman simply on the basis of the home of their author. Would Swift be alongside O'Casey simply because they are both Irish? Now if we are talking about a Scottish national luibrary cataloguiong all books by Scottiosh authors than that would be a different thing but we are only talking about how an international library in washington files its books, not an official classification of some sorts. As I said at the start of the thread, what is a scottish novel? Would a novel set in 18th century france written by a scottish author qualify while a book written and set in Glasgow by a yorkshire author wouldnt? Would fabiani want an immigrant to Scotland to be told that their novels are not allowed in the 'scottish' section of the library? |
||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
"There is no such thing as 'an Austrian point of view' in literature."
How do you know? "Would fabiani want an immigrant to Scotland to be told that their novels are not allowed in the 'scottish' section of the library?" Well, if you want a complicated one... Michel Faber. |
||||||||||
| Bigfella |
|
||||||||||
| Rinty |
"Well, if you want a complicated one... Michel Faber."
My point exactly. Those like fabiani wouldnt have him in the scottish literature section as they are talking about books written by authors who are scottish. It is so complicated that it makes this re-classification by one library irrelevant and not worth bothering about. Following this argument, if faber is filed under scottish fiction then Robert Loius Stevenson wouldnt be! |
||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
It's obvious some people are totally driven by political tribalism in this thread even though they hand out lectures about the evils of tribalism to other people. By way of a reality check let's keep in mind that Scottish literature is being classified as English on a geographical rather than a linguistic basis in this context when all they had to do to get their classification correct if they wanted to streamline things a bit by having literature from the UK on the same shelves was to use the word "British". | ||||||||||
| Rinty |
"It's obvious some people are totally driven by political tribalism in this thread even though they hand out lectures about the evils of tribalism to other people."
Who? and and care to explain how? "all they had to do to get their classification correct if they wanted to streamline things a bit by having literature from the UK on the same shelves was to use the word "British"." You see, that makes sense, and it is worth a letter from someone who visits the library and points out the mistake. But to make it an issue for a national Government Minasiter is way over the top. All that has happened here is that one library has classified some things that, technically and pedantically, should be titled british rather than english. It's hardly the first or the last time americans will make that mistake (oops sorry, I said americans and unintentionally included mexicans and canadians  ).
Do we think that if a libray in Scotland classified Saul Bellow as an american writer rather than a canadian writer or if his books ended up in a 'US literature' section at the Mitchell Library, do you really think that the Canadian Govt would intervene and a Minister would get involved? |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Because literature operates on a different level from 'nationality'. |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
'British' literature if it means anything, means texts written in the ancestor of modern Welsh. |
||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Have you actually taken the time to actually check up on their classification system? The main classification is P for Language and Literature then it is PR for English Literature. What is being argued about is the way that the new subclassification system allows for a separate PS for American Literature on a geographical basis with Canadian Literature further separated out by numbers 8001-8599 but has everything else grouped together under English Literature rather than British and Commonwealth or something like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Congress_Classification Worth noting that the issues with what the Library of Congress are up to these days go much deeper than how Scottish Literature is handled:- http://www.guild2910.org/AFSCMEWhatIsGoingOn.pdf |
||||||||||
| Rinty |
"Have you actually taken the time to actually check up on their classification system?"
Yes, did you? If you read your link you will see that 'english' literature refers to all english speaking countries apart from the USA (obviously because it is an american library) . This presumably includes Australia, South Africa, Scotland Ireland, Jamaica. It looks like a language basec classification rather than a geographical one to me. As I said earlier, it is right to say that British would be a better description if they are talking about a section that has just the UK nations and Ireland but I personally cant see what the fuss is about. As someone involved in Scottish literaure through events and other work I can't get over excited about this. Like I said, if the Mitchell library decide to put canadian writers in the US section I am certain the canadian govt would not send a message of protest from a government minister. The thread title suggest that a classification in this library means the scottish literature 'no longer exists'. That is a total exageration and the whole story is a bogus waste of time. What is required is a letter from some scottish writers lobbying for their own section, not papers greeting, hurt national pride, or government intervention in the affairs of a foreign library. |
||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Well you clearly didn't read my last post too carefully if you missed the words "British and Commonwealth". Did you bother reading my second link that talked about "firestorms of protest" about recent move by the Library of Congress? That tends to suggest that the recent changes to their classification system annoyed more than just a few Scottish authors like Liz Lochhead. Sad the way this thread has polarized along political lines. Big fuss about not very much possibly but the National Library of Scotland were well within their rights taking issue with the changes made if it sets a precedent globally and by the sounds of things they were far from the only people doing so.
|
||||||||||
| The Lithgae Jambo |
The Library of Congress has changed its mind. | ||||||||||
| Rinty |
"Well you clearly didn't read my last post too carefully if you missed the words "British and Commonwealth". "
I did read it, didnt miss the words and pointed that I agreed and had already said so in an earlier post. "recent changes to their classification system annoyed more than just a few Scottish authors like Liz Lochhead" Yes, we know this, the thread starts with a story about a Scottish govt minster getting involved. I am all for people asking them to change it. You should read my posts. I just dont see that it is a big issue is the library of congress DOES NOT set some sort of international classifications system that meas a sub-section 'ceases to exist' if they change the classification. That is why I think this is overblown. The link you provide states that the library use this systemt for their own convenience and not for some mission re international literature. I couldnt open your other link? Does it show other governments making representations to the Library are are Scotland the one to get involved at govt level? I have only spoken to two writers about this. One is a Scottish nationalist who didnt want to get involved as he told me 'I am a fiction writer not a scottish writer', the other a former comunist party member who wants to sign the protests and thinks it matters. Can we maybe see someone offer a defintion of 'scottish' literature? Is it where the author is born? Where the book is written? where the writer lives? Does the the writer her/himself choose where they should go. Is it down to libraries to decide? |
||||||||||
| Rinty |
Good. BUt I still dont see how you separate two novels, of the same style and subject matter by where the author is born or lives.
John Buchan is quoted in the article. It seems it would be a disaster if Buchan was classified Scottish. For Baron Buchan, Governor General of Canada, who wrote of empire and english heroes like Nelson, I dont think it would have mattered. |
||||||||||
| inga |
I agree utterly. A petty matter of linguistic classification is one thing, but this is just a gross misstatement. ~Inga |
||||||||||
| Rinty |
See now I am confused. The link william provided shows that the libraries classification was lingustic not geographical.
There is only one 'english' literature category and this presumably includes all english speaking authors apart from the USA wher the library is situated and has it's own section. Otherwise why is there no 'australian' or 'jamaican' section? Where are we getting the idea that this is geographical. What geographical classification does austrialina or jamaican literature fit into. |
||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Not sure what is being argued over at this point. The fact there is a separate American Literature category PS means that the English Literature category PR has to be based on geography not language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libr...lass_P_--_Language_and_Literature Beyond that if the complaint by the National Library of Scotland was as off base and petty as some on here seem to think then the Library of Congress would almost certainly not have reconsidered their decision on this. |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
No it doesn't. It means that the library makes a single exception to the standard logical system of classification to suit its own needs. As they are perfectly entitled to do. If the library classification system was based on national origin, there would be sections for Belgian, Austrian, Uruguayan literature etc. Are there? |
||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Read what I wrote again. I suspect you struggled a bit on English Comprehension when you did your English O Grade and Higher exams.
|
||||||||||
| Rinty |
"Not sure what is being argued over at this point. The fact there is a separate American Literature category PS means that the English Literature category PR has to be based on geography not language."
William, it was you who provided the link as 'fact'. In that library 'american' literature is the only english language classification that is separate. This is clearly because it IS an american library. Where is australian literature classified? What about Jamaican literature? If it was based on geography we would see separate classifications for all of these. Likewise Spanish, French and Italian are there but not separate classifications for other french spanish or Italian speaking nations. There is belgian classification but there is one for flemish - a language. Also 'old norse' is a classification. If it was based on borders and not language this would just fall under noway's literature. Your link to the library has clearly shown that this was always a classification by language and not nationality of the authors. And rightly so. "Read what I wrote again. I suspect you struggled a bit on English Comprehension when you did your English O Grade and Higher exams." I sat my english o'grade in 1979. I didnt do very well but as I was only 15 and I dont see how it has any bearing on this debate 29 years later. |
||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
If there were no American Literature category (it should be noted complete with a Canadian subcategory) then it would all be based on language. There is so the English Literature category is clearly based on geography. How difficult can this be to understand? Something like British and Commonwealth Literature with a number of national subcategories similar to the Canadian one within PS would be the sensible way to go. That is no doubt why the Library of Congress have reconsidered. You and agentmancuso wound up looking a bit silly after they did so. The sensible thing to do now would be to admit you made a mistake when you assumed that Linda Fabiani was tilting at windmills on this and move on. That's my last word in this thread. | ||||||||||
| Rinty |
"There is so the English Literature category is clearly based on geography. How difficult can this be to understand?"
Clealy a geographical england that includes australia, new zealand, scotland, wales, re of ireland, jamaica, trinidad, South Africa, Kenya, Sierra Leonne, Zimbabwe, Singapore, Namibia, Northern Ireland, Liberia, Belize, Cayman islands, Bermuda, Hong Kong......... You see where your geographical argument falls down falls down? It is obvious that there is an exception to the rule and that is america, the country where the library is based. Look at the Spanish classification. Do you see that as being geographical? Where do you think the literature of of Argentina, Venezuala etc are filed. Is there a separate brazilian classification or are they lumped in with Portugal? You need to step back William, in the pursuit of winning the debate you are being blinded to your own information. The classifications of the 'language and literature' department are clearly based on language, not geograhy, with one exception, america. You are attempting to paint that one contradiction as the evidence that determines the rest when in fact it is an understandable variation from the norm in the biggest library in america. I still dont see much value in the notion of 'scottish' literature other than stengthening the publishing industry and as marketing for our writers. Most scottish writers have as much or more in common with writers in the same genre as they do with people who happen to live in the same place as them. Also, we are still not clear as to what fabiani means by scots writers? If she is claiming Stevenson, who wrote his books while living elsewhere, as 'scottish' literature, then does this mean she is classing writers in Scotland who dont originally come from here as foreign and classed under the country of their birth? |
||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Don't get too upset. For some reason, the Library of Congress has reversed this decision.
|
||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
But the levels are not unconnected. It goes without saying that a writer is affected by their background, even on an unconscious level. This thread has lost its raison d'etre. I'm scarpering off elsewhere. |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
No: the classification is based on language, with certain exceptions that are convenient for the library.
I didn't know it was anything to do with Fabiani to be honest. She's a local MSP and seems fairly competent. |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
True. But 'nationality' only exists on a conscious level. |
||||||||||
| doodells |
haha, you really thought that I thought the land had actually dissapeared!? haha, calm down and stop trying to insult people at every opportunity. |
||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
You seem to be having some editing trouble, but I've deciphered it as best I could.
True. But all Basque literature is written in Basque. Literature from the Basque country written in Turkish would be Turkish literature.
I said the importance of literature had f-all to do with its environment. It's debatable whether the work you mention can really qualify as literature anyway.
No it doesn't.
It would be reckless to assume even such a base level of comprehension on this forum. |
||||||||||
