This was a question that almost got on the air a year or two ago.

So my cousin/former roommate/on again off again writing partner (don't even ask for the whole story there) and I have an issue with two words but for completely different reasons. The words in questions are "timeless" and "universal" in terms of their application to a piece of artwork or literature.

Neither of us have a particularly positive opinion regarding those terms but we have two completely different cases against them.

My case is that they are so overused that they are buzzwords and that the meaning is fairly murky and imprecise.

His case is that the terms are imperialist because they both imply an absolute application. His case is that something can not be described as "universal" or "timeless" if that aspect can be in any way mitigated in even the most minute aspect and that there is nothing that can actually meet that standard.

So are we both being too picky by having issues with the use of these terms? And who has the stronger case regarding the issues against them?

tromboniator said:

I don't know if this answers your question, but timeless, in particular, seems to belong to movie trailers, and smacks of hyperbole. Am I correct in inferring that your cousin says that there are absolutely no absolutes?

Peter

I can't speak for him but I think he would lean heavily towards yes. I'd lean towards that answer as well but not as strongly.

I was referring to those words being used in the context of art and literature more than a general usage.

Can you use those terms with broad definitions like that in cases where the implied meaning would be mitigated?