Re: The Universe May Not Be Universal
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:55:59 +1000
> 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.
Are we ??? Then why do we even bother to discuss Salinger and Zen because
that's certainly not a Western thing. I figure this argument is quite
similar to the arguments I often have with people about art. To me,
studying art is almost studying everything around and outside an artwork -
the artist who painted it, why they painted it, where and how. People ask
me `why do people pay millions of dollars for something whose raw materials
probably wouldn't be worth 100 dollars?' I explain to them - when you're
buying a painting, you're not really buying a painting, you're buying its
place in history. And to me, this is also of intrinsic importance in the
study of literature. TCIR would be a whole different ball game if it had
been written by a Japanese man in 1851and that is something always in the
back of our minds when we discuss it. Or if it was written by a monk in 500
AD and only three of us even knew about it. I think universality isn't
necessarily a self acting substance either - a potential for universality
is just as important as its achievement. But those `universal' texts have a
way of getting around - there's a good chance a beggar in Iceland knows who
Hamlet is, even his name - so I think comparatively few have been lost to
us through lack of translation etc. Universal texts contain universes
waiting for activation, and whether 5 or 5 million people activate them is
irrelevant.
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE
www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
THE INVERTED FOREST
www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest