Literary texts are not timeless (Emma and Clueless)

[spoce]

Hi,

I was wondering what everyone thought about this statement in relation to Emma and Clueless:

"Literary texts are not fixed with timeless and universal meanings. Their meanings are produced bu differnt readers and change according to different historical contexts"

Personally i thought that all the Emma and Clueless were set in different periods, that the same themes were covered

Thank-you

[m-spider]

Well! Clueless is, after all, a nowadays version of Emma. Elton is even named the same way in both... but be it Clueless or be it any other bok, of course literature is timeless. Even more so Austen's literature: she rarely added hints to her time, I mean-- of course it was all victorian, but it's not as if it was all Thackeray-ish, talking about Napoleon and such, or Eliot, when he (she, actually) goes crazy in Middlemarch and dives headfirst into british politics of then.
The love theme is certainly timeless if you want to make it into a contemporary based movie (see Pride and Prejudice and Bridget Jones), and then it is also timeless in the sense that it never goes out of style!

;P

M

[spoce]

I understand but surely classics like Emma aren't timeless because readers in different eras can not fully comprehend what it was like back then. Isn't that why Clueless works so well?

[Ygraine]

Perhaps modern readers don't understand things in the same way that contemporary readers would have done, but that doesn't mean they necessarily understand them any less or enjoy the literature any less. One of the marks of good literature is that it will always hold appeal, even if the reader interprets things in a different way

[TariNumenesse]

Every reader of a book will interpret it differently, especially fiction. There may be a bit of explaining or research to do with historical novels, but that doesn't mean that the reader will not understand it or enjoy it. There just may be a slightly, or largely, different slant on the book from their point of view.

In literature at school right now we are studying Pride and Prejudice and the BBC mini series version of it. Even though the series is not modern day, it is amazing how much they changed and exaggerated to explain it to modern audiences (Mr Collins, for example, is quite exaggerated.) But reading the book people can still understand the story, themes and characters.

[vedrimir]

Well, one cant disagree with such a claim. But on the other hand we mustnt forget that there also exist some nucleus of constant meaning in litarary texts. Consistency of the meaning of the texts goes along with changing of the meaning, i should think.

I think we should also agree that theres nothing like "timeless", "universal" art. Even Shakespeare loses its appeal to modern readers, and every text has some sort of "expiry date"...

[BLUE BABY]

Dear all, I believe that Literature books are not entirely irrevelant to our lives and society today. I cannot deny that books are written in different eras by writers who have opinions and views that are relevant to that point of time. But there are indeed books whereby the themes of the books are able to cross different generations. Take for example, "Gone With The Wind" by Margaret Mitchell, the theme of the novel was of survival and fighting spirit, which are things which people can inspirations from, no matter what circumstances they are or when they are. I disagree when Vedrimir said when he mentioned that Shakespeare has loses his appeal. The theme of Shakespeare plays explores the treachery of the human nature which I find it is still relevant. I believe that Vedrimir has not fully understood what Literature is. Last and not least, as Harriet Beecher Stowe said,"More things can be done with pen than with swords".

[vedrimir]

Ah, we disagree again:)

Actually, now that i read my post im not sure i agree with it either. Generally speaking i like to believe some works are timeless and universal and everattractive. Im also a huge Shakespeare "fan" and i think hes the greatest poet to ever live, but (again), i still think we must be aware of the fact that people dont dig his work that much, and he simply wont be read some day. We start to accept that at some point i guess.

As for me not "understanding what literature really is", im sorry to say, but such a claim seems very naive to me. I mean, who can possibly "understand" the essence of literature!? I sense much emotions while reading literature, but i cant say i "fully understand" what it really is, nor do i care for spoiling the magic;)