I think the post in which a person said, "someone in Russia and Connecticut can make a connection with the work," pretty well sums up our assumptions about universal lit. Ok, let's talk Romeo and Juliet. A person in Connecticut, and a person in Moscow, have a HECK of a lot more in common with each other cuturally than either one of them has with a person born and raised in Saigon, Calcutta, or Central Africa. If people from all five of these regions read Romeo and Juliet, I suspect the Russian and the Connecticut people would approach the text with a lot more common assumptions than the other three would. That's why I insisted on Western Lit and not universal lit. How many works have we read from Chinese authors--written in the last hundred years? Yet how many millions may have been influenced by their work? jim On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 11:41:40 +1000 Camille Scaysbrook <verona_beach@geocities.com> writes: > >> 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. _____________________________________________________________________ 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]