I don't want to drive this universal thing into the ground altogether. But. When Camille tells me we all know someone like Falstaff or Hamlet, I don't think I agree with her. Although I recognise the dismay of old age as it contemplates the weakening of its powers & influence, the impending dissolution of the self, the waning of libido, I wonder would I have felt them in a `Falstaffian' way before I'd read the play ? I can feel the obsessive jealousy of my mother as she lies between incestuous sheets with my usurping uncle & my own indecisiveness in the face of it all. But neither I nor any of my friends were ever remotely like the Prince of Denmark. It seems to me it's the very particularity of a great character that makes him vital & memorable, not the universality of his emotions or actions. We all `know' Holden because JD gave him a highly configured personality - but did we ever actually encounter him out there ? And in this connection, I read Cheryl's strictures on racism, sexism & agism with misgiving. I certainly hope she won't apply them to her creative writing. If she does, her characters will be simply inoffensive ciphers. It seems to me we come to convincing life more through our prejudices & failings than our good intentions. Scottie B.