Re: The Universe May Not Be Universal

J J R (jrovira@juno.com)
Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:02:06 -0400 (EDT) 

On Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:55:59 +1000 Camille Scaysbrook
<verona_beach@geocities.com> writes:
>
>> 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.

Ah, but you've missed half the discussion then.  We weren't talking about
Zen as it is understood and praticed in China, but over here by a
particular Teacher (what was his name?) whose purpose was to introduce
Zen to western culture.

 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.

Formalist critics would disagree with this view.  At the least, don't
take it for granted.    The world of visual art does operate on different
rules than literature, BTW, at least as far as an artist becoming known
and respected goes....  

 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.

That's not necessarily true.  The people who first invested in Dali did
so without any concept of his future historical significance.  UGH, what
were their names?  They simply appreciated his work, respected his
talent, and wanted to support him.  

If he wasn't such a freaking FREAK, we may not be talking about him now.
:)

 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.

Which is why we would talk about Salinger within the Context of Western
Lit and not Japanese :)

 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 

Nope, not irrelevant.  That a text treats of universal themes is one
thing.  That a text itself is considered "universal" is another.  There's
plenty of bad literature that deals with universal themes, and the five
people who appreciate it aren't enough to raise it anywhere near the
level of "Hamlet" in importance.

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]