Well said.
I didn't really pay attention to this thread..but good literature is
timeless.  If the source of somethings relevance is only in its timeliness,
then it probably isn't that wonderful of a work.
Dostoyevsky and writers/philosiphers like him knew what it meant to be
human, that it extended far beyond monitary greed and shallow desire, that
at its heart, humanity was in a constant search for what was "right" and
what was "wrong".  This thought is one of my passions at the moment
actually..so I thought i'd just say..hell yeah dostoyevsky rocks.

mark

I'm sorry about the phone call, and needing you, some decisions you
don't make.� I guess its just like breathing but not wanting to, ya
there are some things that you can't fake.
VM19085475090


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 2:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [MMouse]: coupland and authors



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.

Reply via email to