> You're right. It was a semantic nitpicking of OP's claim of universal transcendence.
Here's the thing about nitpicking in a high emotion thread. You have to be completely correct if you don't want to be piled on... and especially here, you aren't.
The OP didn't make a claim of universal transcendence, they listed specific categories (cultures, languages, and generations) that the work transcends. Categories that most works don't transcend. This is inherently praise for the author.
Your bringing up of a separate category that it doesn't transcend when there was no original claim that it transcended this category is either off topic, or a criticism.
Here's the thing about nitpicking in a high emotion thread. You have to be completely correct if you don't want to be piled on... and especially here, you aren't.
The OP didn't make a claim of universal transcendence, they listed specific categories (cultures, languages, and generations) that the work transcends. Categories that most works don't transcend. This is inherently praise for the author.
Your bringing up of a separate category that it doesn't transcend when there was no original claim that it transcended this category is either off topic, or a criticism.