RE: Universitatlity

 
Scottie, on whether *Catcher* is universal:
 
> No, but it does seem to be doing amazingly well.

Of course, and it will continue to do well for some time. But Holden's
world will become less and less familiar to readers over time, and the
notion of Holden's plight having a universal appeal will incrementally
become less and less tenable.

Shakespeare, too, will eventually be unseated as the primum mobile immotum.
All-seeing Shakespeare's universal appeal will fade--is fading--and if we
make it far enough, those exquisite iambs will some day be irrelevant.

Here's the bad news: Shakespeare's usefulness will outlast Salinger's,
probably for centuries. Shakespeare will certainly outlast professors of
English literature and higher education as we know it in the west. But
things change. If it be not now, yet it will come.

Anglo-Saxonists argue that *Beowulf's* cultural relevance was revived after
WWI, bringing us reworkings like *Lord of the Rings*--which might suggest
that *Beowulf* addresses universal concerns. "It's human nature!" comes the
cry. But how can we make appeals to human nature, when human nature itself
appears to change? The *Beowulf* poet told a pagan story from a Christian
perspective, and his scorn for paganism surely colors his viewpoint enough
to compromise the "original" story. How universal could *Beowulf* be, given
that our understanding of it depends on a written text, which is different
again from the "original" performed versions? I think the fact that texts
change nicely demonstrates that they aren't universal. Every reading is a
translation, and insofar as that's true, we'll have to do without the idea
of "universal."

--
mkozusko@ursinus.edu  
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH