1600s

who the hell is voting the 1900s over the 1600s

1600s: Hamlet, Paradise Lost

1900s: Ulysses, In Search of Lost Time, Gravity's Rainbow, Infinite Jest

Hmmm...

>>7519096
>In Search of Lost Time

ENGLISH

>>7519096
Now everybody talking bout they blastin',
Hmm...

Is you bustin' steel or is you flashin'?
Hmmm...

>>7519367

If translations count, then KJV added to Shakespeare takes 1600s to the tippity top.

Not incl Irish authors:

>1500s
Tyndale, Spenser, Marlowe, early Shakespeare
>1600s
late Shakespeare, Jonson, Burton, Browne, Donne, Herbert, Marvell, Milton
>1700s
Pope, Richardson, Fielding, Gibbon
>1800s
Blake, Wordsworth, Shelley, Keats, Austen, Dickens, Eliot, Browning, Tennyson, Swinburne
>1900s
Hardy, Conrad, Lawrence, Woolf

1600s win

There is so much great lit from the 1900s my first thought is to choose that.

However, there is so much shit tier lit from the 1900s as well. Does the shit end up hurting the century?

All of the people voting are definitely counting Irish and American literature

It's subjective.

>>7519461
IF ITS IN ENGLISH THEN ITS ENGLISH

SUCK ME

Hey, everybody. Just voted 1900s.

>>7519419
Don't 1800s win?

>>7519598
If you like those authors more, sure.

>>7519461
english = english language you dumb fuck

>>7519911
It means "FROM ENGLAND", retard. "In English language" would be "anglophone"

If it's "from England," then the 1600s, sure.

If it's English-language literature, then the 1900s.

>>7520021
I agree with this.

>>7520021
>If it's English-language literature, then the 1900s.

Except a single Shakespeare play is worth the whole 20th Century combined.

>>7520626
Shakespeare is taught in fucking schools, even my mum knows who he is. Whereas the 20th century has people who are obscure. You'd have to be a pleb to like Shakespeare.

>>7519988
>"In English language" would be "anglophone"
The study of English has always meant in the language you dumb cunt.