We had an entire discussion in class about that same idea...the value in
things that are "transitory", that they enter mass culture, influence, shape
it, and when the change has been made, the piece of literature (for example)
is then viewed as trite and/or devalued...
I somehow don't see people rushing the library bookshelves for Coupland in
100 years, though he has certainly done a lot of work on our current
culture. Dostoevsky on the other hand seems to have made a very powerful
impact on many, many people throughout the world, over 100 years after his
death. It's hard to say which is "greater".
Another thought...how pertinant are some of these authors outside the U.S.,
where we have the time and money to be so vague and cynical?
>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.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
