Printable View
No author is "universal". I think one would be hard pressed to explain the relevance of even Shakespeare to the tribes people in Papua New Guinea. He simply wouldn't be relevant in the sense that he is to the Western, and primarily English Speaking World.
But human and even higher primate nature has universal attributes, hence our best storytellers touch upon them, whether we're dealing a protagonist of Shakespeare's or Achebe's, or Faulkner's--who was a *regionalist* with universal concerns, to paraphrase my instructor.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I agree with jozy, JBI. Of course there are things that are universal. We all are human. Not everything is culturally derived.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
A good bit of Shakespeare was, though its underlying themes are very primal. I think JBI meant that they wouldn't understand the literature; the surroundings of the themes, the story that, to someone unaware of western culture, would be confusing and absurd.
No I mean simply it wouldn't be relevant. Society is so different there than it is here, that the structuring myths that Shakespeare uses and created would be completely alien to them.
Beyond that though, I doubt their languages are able to have Shakespeare translated into them, for lack of diction.
It is the notion that in most dialects of Inuktitut, there are traditionally numerous words for snow, whereas only one real word for flower, (note there are a wide range of flowers that grow in the north). The reason is quite simply snow is more central to the culture, whereas flowers don't really effect their survival.
The concept of a universal is rather limited. Shakespeare may have universal aspects, or Faulkner even (though I think Faulkner less), but as a whole, the works are hardly universal.
I think people need to be careful in thinking that there is some sort of Truth in everything great writers wrote. What makes Shakespeare more truthful, than lets say, Sophocles.
I think style has more to do with the canonical than people allow themselves to admit. Shakespeare was a great stylist. That is simply it. He took what was there before, and presented it in the best way he could. The universal aspects are minimal in relevance compared to his rhetoric, and the language he used.
I think we need to be more careful in what we deem universal. Shakespeare is deeply rooted in the English tradition, whether people decide to admit it or not. Faulkner is firmly put in his Southern United States. There may be universals, if such things exist beyond the basic born aged died commonality, but the universality of these guys is perhaps limited.
Everything is constructed in some frame of reference. That doesn't mean Shakespeare is bad, or not relevant, it simply means his relevance isn't as universal as we seem to think at the moment. The more complex a work gets, I think, the less universal it becomes, unless it becomes absorbed into the majority of cultures.
In that sense, the fable as a genre seems the most universal, as its themes seem to be the most basic.
That's what I said, in a nutshell. The way he presents it is not universal. The themes of jealousy, greed, lust, vengeance, guilt, suffering, love, longing; these are universal without question.
Are they? and does Faulkner present those in a way somehow "more" universal than the next writer? That is what we must ask ourselves. Those are merely words, the concept of universality is rather ridiculous. The English language itself isn't universal, therefore none of its writers are.
I don't know if Faulkner is more universal, but I think the fact that all GREAT literature we know of is based around themes that can be called universal (as the literature spans more than the Western world) says SOMETHING about the themes, and the simple truth that we all are humans also plays some part. It isn't definite, but it can be gathered.
No all works of literature are based around language. Language, and the way we understand it makes great literature great.
The concept of the Universal, in the Frye sense seems rather dated. Most universals aren't actually universal, and those that perhaps are, aren't the central focus of the works of literature, or primarily what makes them "good", or "better" than others.
Language is the centre. Even a translation relies on the language of the language it is translated to. Therefore some things cannot work in other languages, such as Shakespeare's Puns.
Finnegans Wake cannot be translated. Does that mean it doesn't have universal elements in it? no, though tell me if you can understand them, for the most part I cannot. But it means it isn't universal, as it is merely language, and thereby constrained by it.
Complex works, and even simple works rely on language. Language isn't universal, the same way until a couple of centuries ago, the act of lighting fire wasn't even universal.
Nothing is universal, what about aliens? They wouldn't get Shakespeare at all!
I agree with the general tenor of the article but, as is often the case with over-erudite dissertations of this nature, the message tends to get lost in the semantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by promtbr
Sort of agreed. Language is after all how emotions are conveyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Dated? How could the notion of universal be dated? Either universality exits or it doesn't. And I believe it does. That's my opinion. It's academics frankly who in an effort to make a name for themselves have formulate new notions out of thin air. If you think there is nothing universal between human beings then you have never sat around a table with people of various ethnicities. Everyone I have ever known and any culture that I have ever explored form human bonds as food is shared.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
This is so overly intellectualized JB that it's ridiculous. It's not language that is universal, it's themes and human experience. Language is a medium for expressing themes and human endeavors. Perhaps one culture does not have a large enough vocabulary to translate an experience directly, but to jump to the conclusion that there is no shared commonality does not follow.Quote:
Language is the centre. Even a translation relies on the language of the language it is translated to. Therefore some things cannot work in other languages, such as Shakespeare's Puns.
Finnegans Wake cannot be translated. Does that mean it doesn't have universal elements in it? no, though tell me if you can understand them, for the most part I cannot. But it means it isn't universal, as it is merely language, and thereby constrained by it.
Complex works, and even simple works rely on language. Language isn't universal, the same way until a couple of centuries ago, the act of lighting fire wasn't even universal.
One more thing. Anyone that has raised dogs will tell you that there are universal elements to dog's natures. I have. I expect that cats have the same. I expect that all animals have a universality to them. If dogs and cats have universal natures, why wouldn't humans?
Look, Jealousy, Death, Birth, Aging, Love, those may be universal. That doesn't matter, for the commentary on them, which is literature, can never be, because language isn't universal.
Themes may be universal, but books aren't just themes. They are made up of words.
Ask yourself this - if everything in Shakespeare was so universal, what would be the point of Shakespeare? It is the sense that his ideas create newness, or express things better than anyone else in his time period, or perhaps in English in general that has established his reputation. Not his universality, but his style, as these themes you mention, are, as you say, "universal", I.E. they already exist out there, and everywhere.
I don't doubt there are universal things, in the sense that everyone lives and dies. I just doubt that literature is "universal". It's subject matter may be, but the actual text is merely expression.
Oh, I don't know. Translations have always worked fine to surpass that little language barrier. But I can see what you mean.