Memes aside what is their actual contribution to literature?

Wew lad

We tend to overhype our literature because the average man on the street knows literally nothing about continental literature or even the literary traditions of these Islands.
Don't get me wrong, we can hold our own, but w're not dominant. We stunt ourselves by being so Insular.

English literature is god tier though, in modern literature you are only matched by the German states.

Milton
Wordsworth
Coleridge
Keats
Blake
Shelley
Tennyson
Browning
Hardy
Swinburne

>Joyce
>Wilde
>Yeats
>O'Brien
>Lewis
etc etc
No one can compete with English Yea Forums

Bait

How so?

based. they are english property by right of conquest.

>no Sterne

Tolkein desu

lovely

Attached: download (3).png (220x229, 10K)

Milton desu

If you're just limiting this to England rather than the UK then I suppose you'd have to leave off Scott. What country did you have in mind as having a larger contribution to literature?
In addition to these, some more modern contributors:
Huxley
Ballard
Lowry
Burgess

Breathe meaning into it, genius

This but unironically. The Irish are just Englishmen with funny accents. They speak our language, consume our media and our culture is the same. Hell even our genetics are the same. Come home Paddy, we'll even let you keep your joke of a language this time.

How could they not be overrated if the world became anglo-centric for a while? We are constantly hearing them talk about themselves, so obviosuly these are the mediocre/decent works that are most regarded as masterpieces.

It's like believing Shakespeare was anything special for the world, when every language had its Shakespeare

>every language had its Shakespeare
Name them

Proving that you can have hundreds of great cultural works, but it doesn't matter if another country has two or three that you sound smart for liking.
>Yes, I prefer Russian literature. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky...The list goes on...

You forgot Swift

>The Irish are just Englishmen with funny accents

historically false, although migration and interaction between the two islands have lessened the general ethnic divide between the various ethnic groups of the British isles.

the Irish had English, a Germanic language, imposed upon them. their original language was a Celtic language. they were one of the few celtic groups in Europe that weren't eliminated by Germanic/Latin conquest and ethnic intermixing. southern Britain originally had some sort of Indo-European Celtic population but it was almost completely replaced by interbreeding, migration, and conquest by Germanic tribes from Denmark, and then later by the Normans, also a Germanic tribe originally from Denmark.

The Irish didn't have to go through this to the same extent.

It's debatable the degree to which the Saxons actually displaced the native Britons. They definitely contributed a decent share of the modern genetic makeup, but its hard to know exactly. The Normans only came as conquerers replacing the leadership and society of England but not changing its ethnic constitution all that much,

England, an area with low population density, was invaded multiple times throughout multiple centuries by multiple Germanic tribes. The native Celtic languages were completely eliminated and had next to no influence on the Germanic languages that replaced them. I lean more towards near-complete displacement by intermixing and genocide

you guys can't be serious.

This, to be honest. Everyone on this board should always keep in mind that the current perception of literature and culture in general is shamelessly anglocentric. It's only due to the prevalence of the English language.

The truth is that English doesn't even dispose of translations (or good translations) for the most important authors of the past two centuries. The average Anglo doesn't have even the slightest idea of what he's missing.

For the record no, I wasn't being serious

Intermixing for sure. Outright genocide is harder to conceive of, but might have been the case. It could be that the Britons just capitulated to the new dominant culture and started speaking the language of the Angles and Saxons and participating in their societies. It's not as if they weren't used to having to acquiesce to greater powers, and Roman rule had meant that they weren't capable of the same military prowess as the wilder Germanics. It's an interesting period anyway, even if we don't fully know what happened

I'll fart meaning into your throat, cuntface

>females
>best
Yea no

>Roman rule had meant that they weren't capable of the same military prowess as the wilder Germanics

Roman influence on Britain was very limited and most Britons never came into contact with Latin or with the Romans. Any sort of influence Latin had on indigenous speech was so limited that it completely disappeared after the Romans left. There were very few Romans in Britain and the population, which was soon be displaced, was not really 'romanized'. Roman influence in Britain was not anywhere near as great as Roman influence on the Gauls or the Iberians, so I don't think that it's far to blame their lack of military prowess on their being civilized. I would probably say low population, lack of military culture, and lack of really any sense of unity, including tribal unity. But I'm not on expert on those peoples.

>british """"""culture""""""""

Attached: cnwfqbrbg0q21.jpg (750x580, 35K)

The reason they would have lacked a military culture and unity was due to their being subjugated by Rome for long enough to have lost their independence. Look at the rebellions that Boudicca became famous for to see that they were most certainly capable of military action at one point. Once Rome withdrew, however, they had enjoyed the Pax Romanis for long enough that they weren't as hardened as they would have been before Roman influence, and were thus easier for the Saxons to overcome. Without the presence of the Romans the Saxons would have been evenly matched by the Britons

what relation does that have to the thread at all

try harder at being funny faggot

yes yes everyone knows that

he's right about the culture though, Irish culture is as different to English culture as the English are different to Australians or New Zealanders

t. little dick lewis

(you)

lol at everybody getting upset at this. Yeats and Lewis were Anglo-Irish, same for Sterne and Swift. Even you god Wilde had British blood.

>Roman influence on Britain was very limited and most Britons never came into contact with Latin or with the Romans.
Amazing bullshit, you nationalist fucktard. Half of the English vocabulary comes from Latin.

Only if you take in to account technical words. The core, spoken, used, part of the language is English. The pink parts are Saxon/Germanic.

Attached: words.png (846x249, 36K)

which came from the French, the English as they stand now didn't exist at the time of Rome.

Jesus Christ, this nonsense again. How the fuck does having "British blood" somehow erase that they were Irish? Does America have zero writers of note because they all have Irish, English German or other European blood in them?

always reminds me of this

youtube.com/watch?v=AJzSswlcrCo&ab_channel=fgood

>The average Anglo doesn't have even the slightest idea of what he's missing.
Who?

George Eliot