Ah, your muddled comments are amusing me. Dostoyevsky hits human nature better
than 90% of the hacks that pass for "modern writers." It isn't "who we were,"
it's who we are... that's the nature of good literature, it doesn't limit
itself to the time in which it was written.
Self-affirmingly meditative,
J.
"Public opinion is always right, especially when it's really idiotic."
L.F. Celine
> > to cover 20th century authors, and before that,
> > Fyodor Mikhailovich D., any and all...
>
> I really am almost exclusively interested in modern writing - which is
> not to say anything bad about pre-20th century work, just that I'm not
> in 2 it. I'm interested in literature that explores who we are, who
> we've become recently - not who we were, because I don't believe it's
> possible to truly comprehend who we were just by reading literature -
> the only reason I can comprehend "who we are" (humanity) in modern works
> is because I already know - in a sense I think literature should be
> self-affirming or, more precisely, meditative - literature should be
> gospel, not documentary.
