> Camille, I think the most important thing you said ther was that "we all > know someone like" Falstaff or Hamlet. In my mind, a great sort of "test" > for whether a piece of literature is able to be somehow "universal" is > whether or not one, as a reader can make connections between the fiction > they are reading and some aspect of their own lives. I'm convinced that my > life has been significantly effected by the characters in the fiction I > have read. That's what great literature is all about. > > I apologize and hope I have made some sense. > > Patrick I agree - and I guess, by implication, those texts which are - dare I say - UNIVERSAL - are those with which the most people can sympathise. Simple as that (: That's a good reason why both Shakes and Sal are still read. Camille verona_beach@geocities.com @ THE ARTS HOLE www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442 THE INVERTED FOREST www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest