I'm not going to attempt to really analyze this piece, because a singular reading does not seem sufficient enough to really discuss all the ideas presented by Derrida. I instead want to focus one idea that stood out the most to me from my initial reading.
The question of whether literature is specific or universal was one idea that left a particular impression on me. As a student, I think that initially I am more inclined to think that literature is universal, because as an inhabitant of the “first world”, I have been taught that literature is supposed to be universal. That is why the media that I consume on a daily basis is more often than not world news right? Literature is supposed to represent the world, which is also why we have to read “global” literature in elementary, middle, and high school. What is not presented along with this idea is the fact that most of the literature I consume is first filtered through a Western lens.
There is a reason why I read any form of literature in English only and am not pressured to be able to read in another language the same way that people who aren't fluent in English are. There's also a reason why all texts aren't available in every language. Unfortunately, literature is not yet universal, and probably won't be for quite some time.
After thinking about this, it also made me think about the initial story by Blanchot and how I think it can be connected to fiction and testimony. The testimony of the narrative is literature, but I'm not sure if it's universal. I read it, and I understood the premise of the story, but I don't know if I really believe in the story if that makes sense. I can't really identify with the story, most likely because I am too young to fully understand the implications of World War II. In this way I don't think literature will ever be truly universal in that I think that it will always be a little difficult for modern day people to fully identify with literature from the past. Perhaps this is why Derrida points out a statement from Goethe in which he says that world literature instead of national literature must be a goal for the future.
-Jamie Hall
-Jamie Hall
I like that you took a slightly different approach on this response. I think that you are very correct in saying that literature is not currently universal because of the fact that we don't fully understand the past. Obviously this means that many works of literature that have been written will no longer be universal at some point in time.
ReplyDeleteMy question to you is, do you think that we can ever overcome this, or as the population continues to age and advance literature will never keep up and will never be "world literature because the future will continue to not understand the past?"
I liked the different approach of this post as well, and I think Peter brings up a great question. Personally I think that no matter how much we advance in trying to understand other languages and cultures, there will always be that barrier that will never allow for literal translations. Therefore I don't think we will be able to overcome this.
ReplyDelete