Thank you, thank you, thank you...
Somehow hearing that Miller had more insight into the human condition than
Dostoevsky kind of made me feel like retching.
Kate
>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.
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
