Re: This list isn't Universal
patrick flaherty (pfkw@email.msn.com)
Wed, 15 Jul 1998 09:45:46 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Kozusko <mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu>
To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu <bananafish@lists.nyu.edu>
Date: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 9:19 PM
Subject: This list isn't Universal
>WILL HOCHMAN wrote:
>
>> books still sell well and are read frequently in schools...i'm not sure
if
>> "universal" is the right word, but it does explain to me why we still
>> discuss his writing with reading and writing and even silent passion.
>
>That word is what keeps me up at night. The distinction I am drawing is
>between something being widely accepted and something being universally
>accepted. People still discuss Salinger widely and affectionately and
>vigorously. It's doubtful, though, that they will do so forever,
>everywhere.
>
>
>--
>Matt Kozusko pedantic_bastard@parallel.park.uga.edu
Based on your recent posts, I was wondering how you would answer the
following questions.
What is it that has caused the work of Shakespeare to remain universal,
excuse me, "widely accepted" four hundred years later?
What, in your opinion, will cause the work of Salinger to go out of style in
the years to come? Perhaps a better way to put this is: What does Billy
have that JD doesn't?
Patrick Flaherty
pfkw@msn.com