[KS] lost in colonization

[kevin parks]

On Oct 17, 2004, at 2:29 AM, J.Scott Burgeson wrote:

> Of course, many of the great
> works of world literature were originally quite
> subversive and radical, from "Don Quixote" to
> "Ulysses" to "The Satanic Verses," which is exactly
> why they were so innovative and consequently became
> recognized classics. In a word, they were "new" at the
> time which is why they are appreciated for their
> orginality within the overarching tradition of the
> literary canon. I wonder if the KLTI really gets this
> fundamental fact..

Is that a _fact_? A _fundamental__fact_? How scary! I don't like the 
'F' word.
And i wonder about that notion... This puts a darn heavy premium
on individualism, novelty, and innovation. Are those the only values
there are? Couldn't a work of art be valuable or sustain for different
reasons? Because it was beautiful, cause it resonated, cause
it played a part in a larger more beautiful tradition or some other
intrinsic qualities? Is Yi Sang read today *only* because he was
innovative and controversial? I'd like to believe there is more
to it than that....

> . If that weird pervert Yi Sang came
> knocking on their doors today, would they warmly
> embrace him, or make him wait another 40 years to be
> granted their "official approval," which is basically
> what happened the first time around...?

I am sure I Sang would do just fine today, what, with all those 
foreigners around to
make sure he was appreciated by Koreans. .... a-hem ...

kevin parks