We Need A Revolution In Literature!

[stlukesguild]

Wolf... no one is going to buy into your notion of an egalitarian golden age of the future... especially when you need to skew the facts (lie?) to prove your point:

For example, CCNY (a public university in New York City with open admissions known as the "poor man's Harvard") has produced more Nobel Prize winners then most of the Ivy League universities on the East Coast combined. (No doubt, the Ivy League universities are much injured by their "Legacy" program.)

CCNY has nine Nobel Laureates. Colombia has 96. The University of Chicago has 87. MIT has 77. Harvard has 46. etc...

Anyway, the golden era in literature is not in the past, it is in the future. The other night I discovered there are some very talented, very creative individuals on this very website who are writing innovative work better than some of the stuff in the Norton Anthology of Literature.

And you continue to undermine your argument by suggesting a glaring lapse in critical judgment.

If the Norton Anthology represents the best literary work in the history of man then we have scarcely evolved from the butt-scratching apes in the zoo.

Art evolves in the sense that it changes. Artists must deal with the world in which they exist. But art is not like science. In spite of all our advantages in terms of knowledge and access to the whole of literary history we are not blessed with a wealth of writers today who are inherently greater than Homer, Dante, and Shakespeare.

I have my suspicions that some of the best literary work of the past did not find its way into the canon, but found its way into the garbage can. Manuscripts that contained too much politics, contained unconventional or unpopular ideas, too much sex, too much homosexuality, or simply a writer didn't have the right contacts, or didn't come from the right class of people to have the right contacts - you can bet that any number of factors might prevent a great work from getting published, let alone getting into some canon.

You've been reading too much of the politically correct criticism. You make some rather unlikely suppositions assuming that writers/artists of the past would have acted like writers of today in terms of openly questioning their leaders, their faith, etc... At the same time you miss out on the glaring audacity of many of the greatest writers/artists of the past which in no way supports the notion that the canon is chosen in support of the power elite. Shakespeare was quite likely bisexual, may have had an affair with a mulatto, and wrote plays that were clearly amoral: good does not prevail... evil is not ugly, ignorant and ultimately the loser. Shakespeare's rival atop the canon, Dante audaciously reinvents heaven, hell, and everything in between as he sees fit. Surely Milton would have been much more fit as a role model of the time. And then there's Michelangelo with all his nudity and his pent-up (homo-) sexual frustration exploding above our heads in the very heart of the Catholic Church. Your suspicions prove nothing without digging further.

However, this does not mean I wish to throw out the canon. If you find garbage amongst gold you certainly don't throughout the gold as well. Of course, garbage is a strong word. Perhaps mediocre would be a better word to describe some of the works that are in the canon. I am of course talking about the canon of English literature, as I cannot even begin to comment on the literature of other cultures, as my education unfortunately overly emphasized the literary achievements of a rather backward island on the periphery of Europe.

As others have asked, I would like to know just which works you imagine are "mediocre" and why.

[Aspirational]

Can I ask which writers on this site you think can match the Norton Anthology? And can you provide some links to their work? Perhaps if everyone were to agree that Shakespeare-level talent is littered around the fabric of society at every level from the slums to the upper-class, then everyone would agree that literature needs to change the way it's represented. Somehow, though, I doubt you ever saw any work on this website that you really think is better than the Norton Anthology. Possibly, you've never read the Norton Anthology. I suppose the likeliest situation is just that you're so convinced by this revolution concept (you seem to want it to be true) that you've convinced yourself that the work of sub-optimal writers (OK, I accept that there may be on this forum one person, a neglected gem capable of matching the writers in the Norton Anthology, but the vast majority of people here could never dream of being in that class, let's be honest) is superior to those of the people the rest of the world (including said witers) hold up as the best.

[WolfLarsen]

I wrote a reply to Darcy the other night which I will post now. I will post responses to the other posters later time permitting.

Hello Darcy,

Actually, that's a very good question! And I wish I knew the answer, but it was 20 years ago that I was in the middle of the Bering Sea with only the Norton anthology.

Even if I had a copy of the Norton anthology here right now with me I probably would not take the time out to reread/skim through the book to properly answer your question, although it is a very good question.

Perhaps not all of the problem is the Norton anthology. Perhaps English literature is rather limited compared to some other cultures. After all, England is an island on the periphery of Europe. Many artistic and literary achievements were occurring in continental Europe long before the Anglo-Saxons became even remotely civilized. Perhaps great English literature and painting begins with the Romantics, perhaps not. I am no expert. And I'm not going to take the time out to become an expert. If I have the time I'd rather study the literature of continental Europe, the Middle East, India, and China.

Perhaps the Norton anthology for me was sort of like this website. Everyone in the Norton anthology is a capable writer. But guess what? Virtually everybody on this Internet site is a capable writer.

But you see it's not enough to be a capable writer. Cities are filled with capable buildings that are boring and add nothing to the advancement of architecture. So you see you can be a very capable architect or writer and still add nothing to the advancement of architecture or literature. You need to do something new!

In the world of literature as long as you're doing something different I feel that it's okay to write in a conventional style. However, it's a lot more difficult to write something different in a conventional style when practically everybody and their dog is writing in the conventional style. Why should I bother reading something that reminds me of 10,000 other works I've read?

Look at the art museum in Bilboa or the new bandshell in Chicago and you will never forget it. Look at an adequate building that fits into its environment and you will probably forget it. But there is always somebody who beats the odds, and writes something conventional and still manages to write something truly unique. On this website there is at least one such writer. He can take important powerful people and reduce them to some trivial and rather pathetic human being sitting on the toilet. I don't think he actually had anybody sitting on the toilet in his stories, but you get the idea. He's good. He somehow manages to make conventional writing feel fresh, which is not an easy thing to do. Most conventional writing feels stale.

It's not easy to make a conventional story worthwhile reading. So a story is well-written with proper grammar? So what!! As far as I'm concerned you learn correct grammar in grammar school, and after that it's time to do something new. If you have a white-collar job you use correct grammar all day long. When you get home don't you want to do something different? If you have a blue-collar job you probably have to do everything by the book all day long for safety reasons, and you should carefully follow safety procedures! But when the work day is done the last thing you want to do is be tied down by rules and routine. You want to be creative!

People keep saying that correct grammar is the architecture of the sentence. What's going to happen if you don't use correct grammar? Are all the sentences going to come crashing down on screaming people like a falling building or something? Take some chances! Get some balls! Do something different!

In some ways there isn't much difference between the Norton anthology and this website. Some people write exciting innovative literature, and others just right competent literature. Both in the Norton anthology and this website you will find some exciting bold literature and then you will find literature that is merely competent.

And if I'm stuck on some goddamn fishing boat on the Bering Sea chopping fish heads off all day long day after day I tell you when I'm lucky enough to have some free time I want to read something amazing! But as I found out not everything in the Norton anthology is amazing. Unfortunately that all happened 20 years ago, so I couldn't tell you which authors and poets were disappointing, but a lot of them were. I guess I had high hopes the first time I could choose for myself what in the Norton anthology I would read, as opposed to whatever was assigned to me in college, but as I sat in that bunk I became more and more disappointed with each turn of each page. I didn't see as much greatness in the Norton anthology as I was hoping for. It was disappointing. But just like this website some were more creative and therefore made a greater contribution to the advancement of literature than others.

[Darcy88]

Even if I had a copy of the Norton anthology here right now with me I probably would not take the time out to reread/skim through the book to properly answer your question, although it is a very good question.

Perhaps not all of the problem is the Norton anthology. Perhaps English literature is rather limited compared to some other cultures. .

Chaucer, Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, Swift, Pope, Blake, Shelley, Keats, Wordsworth, Mill, Dickens, Wilde, Conrad, Woolf, Lawrence, Joyce, Auden, Eliot, and the list goes on and on, a cavalcade of creative geniuses whose works are worth more than a million times their weight in gold. Sure, some writers' works are less stellar than others, but I have a hard time, looking through the table of contents now, finding my finger over a name that I'd feel confident in dismissing as a merely "competent" writer.

It sounds like you are casting judgement on the entire body of English literature based on a perfunctory scan of the Norton Anthology some two decades ago. Look through it again. Engage a few of the works. I'd wager you'll have the same experience I had. The cover of that anthology is like a closet door in a C S Lewis novel. It opens into a fantastic world of beauty and wonder.

The core works of the canon are unimpeachable. Shakespeare's plays, Donne's poetry, Paradise Lost, Conrad's novels, ect. Due to the fact that I am only vaguely familiar with the literature of other cultures I won't proclaim that of England to be the greatest. But its got to be in the running at least.

I just re-read Heart of Darkness, am now reading Blood Meridian, and next up have the Alexandria Quartet, which I've scanned and read a few chapters of. I must ask, what precisely about the past or present state of English literature so turns you off and provokes this sweeping condemnation? In what way could the creations of a Conrad, a McCarthy or a Durrell be substantially improved upon? McCarthy is leaving me speechless, Durrell was a master, and Conrad is.... well he's Conrad. Two of my favourite authors are D H Lawrence and Henry Miller. English literature abounds with writers who pushed the envolope, penning masterpieces that took little heed of convention, the critics be damned.

Your critique smacks of some kind of hairbrained idealism, of a longing for some utopian state disconnected from and utterly beyond reality, issuing from blind categorical negation.

[WolfLarsen]

Darcy - Yes you've mentioned some very impressive names in English literature. However, if I'm going to take a timeout to read something that's not contemporary I'm certainly not going to bother with English literature, partly because I already got plenty of it in college and high school. I will look at French literature. I will look at Italian literature. I will look at the literature of China and India.

In university I took a course on Shakespeare. There was ONLY Shakespeare in that course. He's good. Particularly when you have the lights of Harlem at your feet at two o'clock in the morning. What a beautiful view and Shakespeare in my hand! Yes it's wonderful! I would read Shakespeare out loud. Absolutely wonderful!

But you know. As good a Shakespeare is I do not feel he is as good as many say he is.

A different poster said something about the number of Nobel Prize laureates amongst professors at different universities. Never would I ever ever say that CCNY had more noble prize WINNERS amongst its ALUMNI then the University of Chicago. Not only does the University of Chicago leave all those legacy universities on the East Coast in the dust, but the University of Chicago leaves CCNY in the dust as well. It's not even close, it's not even remotely a contest. After all, it's the University of Chicago. And listen carefully - I'm talking about certain Ivy League universities on the East Coast that have something called the legacy program. I'm not talking about Ivy League universities that do not have a legacy program. The legacy program is an affirmative action program for dumb rich white kids. Well, most of them are white. I'm not trying to be racist, after all I'm white. But I had to say that because I seem to get accused of just about everything around here. LOL

Nor did I ever say I believe in complete egalitarianism. There are some people like George Bush Junior who attended one of those legacy universities. I know high school dropouts that are more intelligent than George Bush Junior. So you got some high school dropouts I knew who work as crewman in Alaska who make the Ivy League legacy types look dumb, they make me look dumb, because they work 12 hours a day sleep six hours a day and read the other six hours. You can say anything you want about the legacy universities but as far as I'm concerned they are overpriced good old boy clubs. Of course, at those legacy good old boy clubs you're bound to make some good contacts that will help you in business or politics or academia later in life, which is very useful if you want to be one of the masters of the universe. (Well academics don't become masters of the universe.) But I bet the ones that go to the Ivy leagues on scholarships are far more intelligent than the gentleman's C types. In fact, I bet you the ones that go to the Ivy leagues on scholarships are more intelligent than Wolf Larsen 1000 times over.

Then there was something about the painter of the Sistine Chapel being gay. Yes he was gay. But so was the Pope at the time (at least that's what I read in the book about the sex lives of the popes). I guess it's all about who you blow, I mean know. Talent doesn't hurt. To bad the prudes later had the private parts painted over. So many damn prudes interfering in literature and the arts, but that's a different subject.

[Aspirational]

Your critique smacks of some kind of hairbrained idealism, of a longing for some utopian state disconnected from and utterly beyond reality, issuing from blind categorical negation.

This, essentially, is what I've been trying to say. WolfLarsen, your post makes a lot of bold statements and follows on from them as if they are certain fact, whereas actually . Someone with little experience or remembered knowledge (you do, after all, admit to last reading the Norton Anthology 20 years ago, and further to be unwilling to read it again) is confidently blaring out their conclusions on the craft they choose to ignore the fundamentals of: why then should we listen. It seems that you've come to a conclusion and are unwilling to reconsider it (if you were willing to reconsider, why not show a little more care for what is in the Norton Anthology?); so where is this exchange of ideas meant to happen? You trying to insist that your unshared views are true is not an exchange of ideas. It's you being unwilling to look up the facts simply because what you actually have done is made a decision which will suit your desire to grab attention with these controversial statements and then refused to back away from it in the face of a series of people all asking you to look carefully at the work in question and provide actual evidence.

Darcy - Yes you've mentioned some very impressive names in English literature. However, if I'm going to take a timeout to read something that's not contemporary I'm certainly not going to bother with English literature, partly because I already got plenty of it in college and high school. I will look at French literature. I will look at Italian literature. I will look at the literature of China and India.

In university I took a course on Shakespeare. There was ONLY Shakespeare in that course. He's good. Particularly when you have the lights of Harlem at your feet at two o'clock in the morning. What a beautiful view and Shakespeare in my hand! Yes it's wonderful! I would read Shakespeare out loud. Absolutely wonderful!

But you know. As good a Shakespeare is I do not feel he is as good as many say he is.

Fair enough, it's your opinion that Shakespeare isn't as good as many say he is. But I was born and brought up in India, in Bengal, where people worship Tagore as the greatest writer ever. I am well versed now in Indian literature (Hindi, Bengali, Urdu), Chinese literature (classical mainly but also some modern), English literature (everything since Chaucer), European literature (from all periods), Classical literature (Greek, Latin, Sanskrit), Arabic literature (Arabic, Sufi, Persian, Dari, etc.), and American literature. Note that this means I have grounding and reasonably valid opinions on the entire Western world of literature, as well as the Islamic, Indian and Chinese writers. And having seen all of them, I still think and have finally come to the conclusion that Shakespeare is indeed unmatched and, actually, unrivalled (as a thinker, at least: perhaps not as a poet). So opinions, you will find, are greatly divided on such matters. There is not one fact that you can hold up as the truth and build argument on argument on: your opinion that Shakespeare is anything less than what people believe him to be is just that. An opinion.

[Darcy88]

Wolf, thanks for your reply, but you didn't really address my objection to your initial thesis that we need a revolution in literature. How could McCarthy be substantially improved upon? Was Tennessee Williams, the homosexual drug-user whose works often focused on working-class characters and touched upon various risque subjects such as rape, too conventional and limited for your liking? How about Walt Whitman, Alan Ginsberg, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, or any of the other dozens of poetic innovators who have graced the stage of English literature? English literature is diverse, dynamic, astonishing.

[mortalterror]

If I were to suggest a work of literature to Wolf Larsen it would have to be the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, which can conveniently be found in the Norton Anthology.

[WolfLarsen]

I must profess my respect for the knowledge and excellent debating skills of some of the other posters here. After reading some of these posts the only thing I'm really convinced about is that there are some very intelligent people on this posting board. However, I still think that any number of factors might help prevent a great author from getting his or especially her works published. As I said before one of those factors might be a writer’s sexual preferences, amongst others.

As other posters have pointed out many gay and bisexual writers have been able to overcome tremendous obstacles of discrimination. However, remember the sexual preferences of an author may not have always been obvious to all of his contemporaries. Some biographer may later find out that such and such a writer was gay or bisexual, but while that person was living not everyone may have been aware of a particular author's sexual preferences. However, the more obvious it is that a man is gay or bisexual the more likely he is to experience discrimination.

Look what happened to Oscar Wilde when his sexual preferences became public. It was not pretty.

To argue that the academic world is free of prejudice is flawed. Well into the 20th century, for example, there were racial quotas at Ivy League institutions that restricted the number of Jews admitted. Whites with Anglo-Saxon names were given preference over Catholics, blacks, etc.

To argue that the literary world itself is free of prejudice is flawed. The experiences of some of the Harlem Renaissance writers and poets are a testament to that. Imagine the movers and shakers of the literary world having an event to honor your writing but not inviting you because you're black.

Yes, many writers have managed to overcome these obstacles of discrimination, but I doubt that that all great writers who were black, gay, Jewish, etc. were able to overcome these obstacles of discrimination. But for every great manuscript by a black, gay, immigrant, Catholic or Jewish writer that found its way into the canon we cannot discount the possibility that many more great manuscripts found their way into the garbage can after the author died.

We are supposed to believe that the canon (according to Norton or some other authority) is somehow a flawless representation of the best literature written. I doubt that's true. I think it's much more random than that. A number of factors might help a work to become published (like the author having the right connections). Any number of factors might make it less likely that a great work gets published.

Look at the publishing world today. It's a big diarrhea factory, but some people (like Rupert Murdoch) are making lots of money from it. The publishing world of centuries ago was different in some ways perhaps. But to argue that all the best works of the past were actually published and later included in some canon seems far-fetched at best.

Of course, what some posters will then do is recite various names of writers/poets in the canon as if that proves anything. Prove to me and everybody else that every single writer/poet in Norton’s anthology was great. I think the quality of work in the Norton anthology is much more uneven than that. I doubt that every single person listed in the canon is a god of literature.

Take William Wordsworth for instance. Don't get me wrong, I love his poems! What's there not to like about them?

But you know what? He's kind of light reading. Not that that's bad. Why not read Wordsworth to fall asleep at night? You're bound to have some pleasant dreams! But frankly there are people posting on this website who are contributing more to the advancement of literature than Williams Wordsworth.

It's difficult for me to admit that Wordsworth is less than a literary god not only because I enjoyed William Wordsworth' s poetry, but also because I was fortunate enough to have a Professor Wordsworth for a semester. His descendent is an excellent professor who I very much respected.

Anyway, just because there are people on this website who are more talented than Wordsworth (the Romantic poet, certainly not the professor) doesn't guarantee that their work will ever be included in some canon. In fact, no matter how good you are the odds are you will never be in any canon unless you know the right people, because your work will probably never be widely distributed and published if you don't know the right people.

More likely the work of Allen Ginsberg will be included in some canon then anybody on this website. What a shame! Much of Allen Ginsberg’s material is not even half as good as some of the stuff on this website. Of course, his famous poem "Howl" is pretty good, but "Mein Kampf" by the Jewish poet David Lerner is much better. (Great poem. Horrible title.)

And of course many of you have heard about a book by Saul Bellow called Herzog. I believe it's received some fancy-dancy award of some kind. Herzog contributes very little to literature in my opinion. There are people on this website who are taking far greater risks and being far more creative and therefore contributing far more to the advancement of literature then Saul Bellow's Herzog. But the sad fact is Saul Bellow's Herzog is much more likely to be included in some future canon than some of the very talented writers on this website. And frankly, all over the Internet you will find writers creating far greater literature than Saul Bellow's Herzog. Virtually all of these individuals are very un-famous.

This is not to say that Saul Bellow’s Herzog is an incompetent work of literature. Just like a competent carpenter can hammer a nail into place the sentences in Saul Bellow's Herzog are decently written. But that's about it. There are competent carpenters, and there are master craftsmen who can do beautiful creative things with wood. There are people on this website (and other websites) who are doing beautiful creative things with words. And frankly, I haven't even begun to scratch the surface here. Unfortunately, it can be rather time-consuming finding the most creative works, because there are plenty of other works that are more of the quality of Saul Bellow's Herzog. That is, competent works that show little creativity or don't really have much to say except that author seems to know where the commas and periods go. Who cares if you know where the commas and periods go? You learn that in grammar school. It's time to do something besides just put the commas and periods in the right place. Maybe for variety you should try putting them in the wrong place. Whether you write in a creative or conventional style do something unique! Do something different than everybody else! Why should I or anybody else read your work if you're not writing something unique? When I say you I don't mean any person in particular I mean everyone that writes.

The time has come to question many of the assumptions about the literary world. Why should we blindly accept every author/poet in the Norton anthology or any other canon as being great? Why should we accept things without questioning them? Why shouldn't we think for ourselves?

The works of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, Swift, Pope, Blake, Shelley, Keats, Wordsworth, Mill, Dickens, Wilde, Conrad, Woolf, Lawrence, Joyce, Auden, and Eliot are certainly above average. But these people are all primates, albeit advanced primates. There is no reason why other talented members of the same species can’t write works of equal quality, or perhaps do even better.

In this universe is estimated that there are billions of galaxies. Out there in all those billions of galaxies may be species who are far more intelligent and/or economically and culturally evolved than us. Perhaps their literary achievements make the works of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, Swift, Pope, Blake, Shelley, Keats, Wordsworth, Mill, Dickens, Wilde, Conrad, Woolf, Lawrence, Joyce, Auden, and Eliot look like monkey scratchings in comparison.

Don't take anything for granted. Form your own opinion.

[cafolini]

Good stuff. Apart from the creativity idea, which has become an unalyzed canon with which I disagree, as you know, I like very much what you had to say here. There is a lot here that is, for today, beyond words. Dictionaries are not even half complete. Language is evolving but far too slow. Why? The misserable canons that repress antomyms and parallel routes. There is a lot of superstition posing as understition. Understanding is always there. Superstanding more, but not even considered. Languages other than English are even more primitive in the use of verbs that are lacking.
Have fun. Thanks for sharing.

[JCamilo]

I must profess my respect for the knowledge and excellent debating skills of some of the other posters here. After reading some of these posts the only thing I'm really convinced about is that there are some very intelligent people on this posting board. However, I still think that any number of factors might help prevent a great author from getting his or especially her works published. As I said before one of those factors might be a writer’s sexual preferences, amongst others.

You are seriously mixing modern publishing busines with Literature. Take even Shakespeare, a non-published genius. Because, well, it was not his point while being published is quite the point of today.

I have no doubt, as anyone else here, that many factors can prevent a author to receive his glory for while. No doubt, Oscar Wilde example may be one of those. Obviously, Dante was one of those. Shakespeare (he was just a playwritter), Homer (the greek language he used was quite gone), Emily Dickinson (never even tried) and there may be even some genius unheard. But those factors, all, are not eternal. You only need a society change, new winds, and sundenly a work is recovered. Take Sappho - she suffered a lot of those factors and in a time when the physical register was ridiculous and yet, she is one of the muses, etc.

Simple as put, every kind of writer has his readers. Those readers will eventually in the history curse have a strong voice. Even if for 15 minutes, even if they are underground, etc. And they will transform those authors, like for example Baudelaire was transformed in some short of sensible dandy, and this will increase the interest for this author. And this process is irreverssible.

As other posters have pointed out many gay and bisexual writers have been able to overcome tremendous obstacles of discrimination. However, remember the sexual preferences of an author may not have always been obvious to all of his contemporaries. Some biographer may later find out that such and such a writer was gay or bisexual, but while that person was living not everyone may have been aware of a particular author's sexual preferences. However, the more obvious it is that a man is gay or bisexual the more likely he is to experience discrimination.

Look what happened to Oscar Wilde when his sexual preferences became public. It was not pretty.

Oscar Wilde would have another face had him not blantanly lied in a court. But what happened with him? He is now worshiped, perhaps even beyond his own talent, as a witty man, as a stilized critic, as some short of freedom fighter. He got the repulse of his time, but certainly not of all time.

To argue that the academic world is free of prejudice is flawed. Well into the 20th century, for example, there were racial quotas at Ivy League institutions that restricted the number of Jews admitted. Whites with Anglo-Saxon names were given preference over Catholics, blacks, etc.

To argue that the literary world itself is free of prejudice is flawed. The experiences of some of the Harlem Renaissance writers and poets are a testament to that. Imagine the movers and shakers of the literary world having an event to honor your writing but not inviting you because you're black.

Nobody is arguing that. Good writers overcome even language barrier, after all look the huge influence of writers from Russia, a country of barbarians according to western europe, either be czarists or communists. At the long run, the prejudice against black writers is slowly fading, as you cann't certainly admit all world is racist.

Yes, many writers have managed to overcome these obstacles of discrimination, but I doubt that that all great writers who were black, gay, Jewish, etc. were able to overcome these obstacles of discrimination. But for every great manuscript by a black, gay, immigrant, Catholic or Jewish writer that found its way into the canon we cannot discount the possibility that many more great manuscripts found their way into the garbage can after the author died.

If this happens, it is more because his own peers didnt saw this talent, maybe himself. Just imagine how women overcome a similar scenario. It is possible that some potential was lost, just was lost because a car accident or a law school.

We are supposed to believe that the canon (according to Norton or some other authority) is somehow a flawless representation of the best literature written. I doubt that's true. I think it's much more random than that. A number of factors might help a work to become published (like the author having the right connections). Any number of factors might make it less likely that a great work gets published.

The Canon cann't be actual and has nothing to do with the publishing of the work as we think now. And nobody thinks the canon is perfect.

Look at the publishing world today. It's a big diarrhea factory, but some people (like Rupert Murdoch) are making lots of money from it. The publishing world of centuries ago was different in some ways perhaps. But to argue that all the best works of the past were actually published and later included in some canon seems far-fetched at best.

I wonder why? Writting was such rarity then, writting as well as you claim, that think many great writers were lost seems like the far-fetched idea.

Of course, what some posters will then do is recite various names of writers/poets in the canon as if that proves anything. Prove to me and everybody else that every single writer/poet in Norton’s anthology was great. I think the quality of work in the Norton anthology is much more uneven than that. I doubt that every single person listed in the canon is a god of literature.

Is there anyone arguing that all poets in Norton anthologies are great?

Take William Wordsworth for instance. Don't get me wrong, I love his poems! What's there not to like about them?

But you know what? He's kind of light reading. Not that that's bad. Why not read Wordsworth to fall asleep at night? You're bound to have some pleasant dreams! But frankly there are people posting on this website who are contributing more to the advancement of literature than Williams Wordsworth.

This is funny. Because the claim that there may be a poet here as good as Wordsworth is a possiblity, but the claim that people in this site are giving greater contributions to literature than he did is not. You know,because contribution to literature is more like History than opinion. You get any poster here who gave such contribution to literature that is able to have new words, sentences, ideas, lead an aesthetic movement, give impulse to other writers, have poems remembered and you have someone which contribution is that big. Is there such person? Put in mind, you have to argue against history (does not matter if Wordsworth was white, tall, british, tory) of a guy who lived for quite a time and people here who are just starting.

It's difficult for me to admit that Wordsworth is less than a literary god not only because I enjoyed William Wordsworth' s poetry, but also because I was fortunate enough to have a Professor Wordsworth for a semester. His descendent is an excellent professor who I very much respected.

Anyway, just because there are people on this website who are more talented than Wordsworth (the Romantic poet, certainly not the professor) doesn't guarantee that their work will ever be included in some canon. In fact, no matter how good you are the odds are you will never be in any canon unless you know the right people, because your work will probably never be widely distributed and published if you don't know the right people.

Publishing today is more easier than during his time. The audience is like 1000 bigger than his time. The visibility is much bigger. Why not? And who are those right persons? They must know the lake poets? What puts in your mind that Wordsworth was idely distributed and published? There is probally more members in this site than the first 5 pritings of Lyricall Ballads. I am sorry, but if people are not famous today, it may just because they are bad.

More likely the work of Allen Ginsberg will be included in some canon then anybody on this website. What a shame! Much of Allen Ginsberg’s material is not even half as good as some of the stuff on this website. Of course, his famous poem "Howl" is pretty good, but "Mein Kampf" by the Jewish poet David Lerner is much better. (Great poem. Horrible title.)

Considering the title is part of the work, probally you see a problem. But of course, I am sure Ginsberg is a good example of a guy with the right conections and all popularity. He certain was in the top of the mainstren America.

And of course many of you have heard about a book by Saul Bellow called Herzog. I believe it's received some fancy-dancy award of some kind. Herzog contributes very little to literature in my opinion. There are people on this website who are taking far greater risks and being far more creative and therefore contributing far more to the advancement of literature then Saul Bellow's Herzog. But the sad fact is Saul Bellow's Herzog is much more likely to be included in some future canon than some of the very talented writers on this website. And frankly, all over the Internet you will find writers creating far greater literature than Saul Bellow's Herzog. Virtually all of these individuals are very un-famous.

People do not consider Pericles a great play, it was written by Shakespeare. Of course, people who study Shakespeare like to read it, but the play itself, is not canonized. And there is a considerable amount of great authors works that are forgotten and not even published anymore.

This is not to say that Saul Bellow’s Herzog is an incompetent work of literature. Just like a competent carpenter can hammer a nail into place the sentences in Saul Bellow's Herzog are decently written. But that's about it. There are competent carpenters, and there are master craftsmen who can do beautiful creative things with wood. There are people on this website (and other websites) who are doing beautiful creative things with words. And frankly, I haven't even begun to scratch the surface here. Unfortunately, it can be rather time-consuming finding the most creative works, because there are plenty of other works that are more of the quality of Saul Bellow's Herzog. That is, competent works that show little creativity or don't really have much to say except that author seems to know where the commas and periods go. Who cares if you know where the commas and periods go? You learn that in grammar school. It's time to do something besides just put the commas and periods in the right place. Maybe for variety you should try putting them in the wrong place. Whether you write in a creative or conventional style do something unique! Do something different than everybody else! Why should I or anybody else read your work if you're not writing something unique? When I say you I don't mean any person in particular I mean everyone that writes.

The time has come to question many of the assumptions about the literary world. Why should we blindly accept every author/poet in the Norton anthology or any other canon as being great? Why should we accept things without questioning them? Why shouldn't we think for ourselves?

Dude, I am in Brazil. Nortons editions have no saying in the world of literature, just in some market in one country. If you need a revolution to get down with Norton, you just need money to buy the damn thing, Not a revolution. At all.

The works of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, Swift, Pope, Blake, Shelley, Keats, Wordsworth, Mill, Dickens, Wilde, Conrad, Woolf, Lawrence, Joyce, Auden, and Eliot are certainly above average. But these people are all primates, albeit advanced primates. There is no reason why other talented members of the same species can’t write works of equal quality, or perhaps do even better.

In this universe is estimated that there are billions of galaxies. Out there in all those billions of galaxies may be species who are far more intelligent and/or economically and culturally evolved than us. Perhaps their literary achievements make the works of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, Swift, Pope, Blake, Shelley, Keats, Wordsworth, Mill, Dickens, Wilde, Conrad, Woolf, Lawrence, Joyce, Auden, and Eliot look like monkey scratchings in comparison.

Don't take anything for granted. Form your own opinion.

If you are talking about literature, you are talking about influence. Your mind is not so free as you think, neither your opinion so relevant and independent (in fact, you are repeating a lot of other writers), but really, if you think you need to debauche the past to be great, you are just being romantic. Like Wordsworth.

[Darcy88]

The works of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, Swift, Pope, Blake, Shelley, Keats, Wordsworth, Mill, Dickens, Wilde, Conrad, Woolf, Lawrence, Joyce, Auden, and Eliot are certainly above average. But these people are all primates, albeit advanced primates. There is no reason why other talented members of the same species can’t write works of equal quality, or perhaps do even better.

What is your point? Who is arguing that the great writers of the past cannot be equaled? And show me a writer on this website who has "contributed more to the advancement of literature" than Wordsworth.

Its kind of funny you use Oscar Wilde as an example of bias in the literary world considering how popular and widely read his works are.

I still don't see what is wrong with the past or present state of literature. I don't see why we need a revolution in literature. Great cutting edge works have been written and continue to be written. Your belief that many masterworks were consigned to the trash can is kooky to say that least. I'm sure it happened, but certainly not on the scale you imply.

[cafolini]

What is your point? Who is arguing that the great writers of the past cannot be equaled? And show me a writer on this website who has "contributed more to the advancement of literature" than Wordsworth.

Its kind of funny you use Oscar Wilde as an example of bias in the literary world considering how popular and widely read his works are.

I still don't see what is wrong with the past or present state of literature. I don't see why we need a revolution in literature. Great cutting edge works have been written and continue to be written. Your belief that many masterworks were consigned to the trash can is kooky to say that least. I'm sure it happened, but certainly not on the scale you imply.

On the contrary, I think his scale is too small.

[Darcy88]

On the contrary, I think his scale is too small.

Any proof of this, or is it just a nice little speculative fantasy of yours? Works were lost through the ages, but I doubt there were a bunch of Shakespeares going unnoticed due to their lack of social connections or their sexuality.

[cafolini]

Any proof of this, or is it just a nice little speculative fantasy of yours? Works were lost through the ages, but I doubt there were a bunch of Shakespeares going unnoticed due to their lack of social connections or their sexuality.

There is no lost & found in this context. How could there be any proof? I think it is not a little, but a big speculative fantasy of mine. On the other hand, that Shakespeare was one of the great is your speculative canon fantasy.