Re: The Universe May Not Be Universal

J J R (jrovira@juno.com)
Tue, 14 Jul 1998 20:10:47 -0400 (EDT)

<<Indeed, it is not. But that is not important. Relevant is only the fact
that a writer, or any artist, or someone cleaning shoes in Calcutta (who
knows?) gives his interpretation and ideas about these things. It's
*these
things* (feelings, etc.) that are universal, NOT the ideas that are
attached to it by the (any) artist itself ! They may BECOME universal,
though, like (in my view) Salinger's and Shakespeare's. On the other
hand,
they may not, like (I hope) Marx's. Only time will tell whether these
ideas
will stand the "test of time". 


Arne>>

Allright, let's talk about what we are REALLY talking about instead of
spouting retorts in the wrong direction. 

We are talking about literature, and Salinger's place in it.  Now, we're
talking specifically about Salinger's place in the Western Canon--namely,
whether future generations will be required to read him alongside of
Hawthorne and, say, Crane in their Am Lit 2 classes.

This isn't about literature as a universal phenomena.  We don't know what
people are reading in other parts of the universe.  This isn't even about
literature as a worldwide phenomenon, because authors that are well-known
to us may be relatively unknown in, say, China or parts of the Soviet
Union.

So, what will Salinger's place in liteature be?  Give me a hundred years
or so to think about it and I'll point you toward an answer.  It's too
early to tell now.  I think he has earned an important place, tho.

jim

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]