That is why I say, a list is fine. But the Canon is impossible. He is all others reading and knowledge, just not mine. He is shapeless, withouot a center, pretty much a Pascal's circle. Not to mention, it is always growing, building - it has potential to infinite and trying to limit with precision the infinite is a mathematical nightmary for most of us.
The best we can say is something geral "In Spain, there is Dom Quixote..." or "In Latin America those dudes like Borges and Marquez"...
The need for a canon is painfully obvious: one cannot read everything, and there are critics who have read more than most and are in a better position to advice others on what to read.
The same applies to film and music.
Why should it matter what one reads, or if one reads so widely - it isn't as obvious as you make it sound - simply put, if the purpose of reading is enjoyment, then does one necessarily have to read Chinese novels, which for the Western reader are oft far too long, contain far too many hard-to-memorize names and contain ideas which require extensive footnoting?Originally Posted by ralfyman
What about vice versa, should a Chinese person really need to care about their Korean neighbors? why is it so obvious.
Not that I disagree, but it is a rather bold statement and far too involved to be "obvious".
That's because one doesn't necessarily read only for enjoyment, or at some point may realize that enjoyment is not the same as immediate gratification. Also, when one discovers that the world is much larger than he imagines, one also discovers that there are many works to appreciate. Finally, given that life is short and that there are many works to appreciate, then one will not be able to read everything, and must rely on those who have read a lot to give advice, which implies a canon.
All of these points are obvious reasons why there is a need for a canon. Of course, for those who will never be aware of a world beyond their own community or country, my argument might not apply.
Need they be aware? What if they are receiving lasting enjoyment from their own native literature's canon, and feel no need to branch out - I have on my shelf an acquired collection of some 300 Chinese classics that I purchased - it will take me probably 10 years to get through the lot - there are tons more that I did not buy, or will buy next time - I have 300 English books on my wall, but I have not finished them all, most are good.
I have the benefit of being a lover of poetry, but rereading is also important - Dante probably had less than 50 books at his disposal throughout his life - will we say he had an impoverished reading experience? No, we will say he probably more thoroughly enjoyed his limited collection than some with 10,000at their disposal.
Don't get me wrong, I am an internationalist, as well as a reader of world literature. But well I know what the purpose is, and what the limitation is - simply put, there are about 5000 years give or take of excellent world literature, I would say about 2500 or so years of a good amount of productivity. Somewhere people are stuck - even what is deemed canonical is hardly consumable in 5 lifetimes if one reads with the will to reread.
Which leaves one at a problem, and in general, people solve it in many ways. They find niches they like - me it was first Italian, now it is Chinese, but I am starting to return to the Italian with greater force. For others it is Roman authors, or Latin American authors, or whatever.
Likewise I prefer poetry, most people prefer novels, some nonfiction, others drama - the possibilities are limitless.
Now, where does the canonical come in? Well, assume every language pretty much has its own canon, with all world literature being vaguely connected, some more connected than others, and you have a concept of world canon - Persian music is the essential element to the understanding of Chinese Song Dynasty Poems, but you do not need to know much about that because the music has been lost.
Likewise, Greek music was the fuel behind Greek poetry in the ancient days - how many of us know anything about the Lute?
Intertext is everywhere, but we all choose to focus not just because of necessity, but because of enjoyment and interest. I am bored sick of reading long 19th century novels, and am rather bored with 18th century English verse. In contrast, I get a lot of thrills out of other traditions - they just appeal to me, so I read them - I couldn't say much about Central Asian literature, but I could talk about East Asian literature, simply because of interest.
As I said in another note - I am on the road these days. Being in a place for 3-4 days, I need guidebooks, and those books have various stars to suggest what is "must see" and "what is just interesting to see". Today I am in Philadelphia - the guide book suggest I see the Liberty Bell, which I did.
So the Canon serves a similar function - I guidebook to someone "new" - "new" to what? In most cases, I think it is "new" to being considered "educated". In good old days in US - I think it is pretty fair to say that one wouldn't be considered educated if one had not read some Plato or Shakespeare (for example). Now with the emergence of the real need of "educated global citizen" (or other names to the same effect), what are some "basic texts" that an educated should have read? This is the question of the World Canon (at least one of the key questions, in my view).
Just like in the old days, one is not necessarily expected to be a Shakespeare expert (you might as well be a physicist, does not make one less respected) -- in today's world, there are more specialization possible. But the World Canon get at some "basics" as to what each "educated" person should know something about. And time is truly limited. What is that something? I think most now would agree that it is no longer the big long list of Western Canon - but what the World Canon or World Literature is needs definition. It seems to be exactly those types of courses the Norton Anthology is trying to design for - one can clearly argue whether it is the right list or not - but the attempt is not completely pointless.
The problem is that tourism guide sucks...
Yes, even for "one's native literature." The fact that you refer to one's "own native literature's canon" means that various local works have to be excluded.
Exactly, that's why what I said is "painfully obvious." Rereading implies that one will read even less.I have the benefit of being a lover of poetry, but rereading is also important - Dante probably had less than 50 books at his disposal throughout his life - will we say he had an impoverished reading experience? No, we will say he probably more thoroughly enjoyed his limited collection than some with 10,000at their disposal.
Also, we cannot tell what Dante would have thought because he would probably not have been able to have at his disposal hundreds or thousands of books. Mass publishing and lower costs for books took place centuries later.
This proves my point about the need for a canon being "painfully obvious." The fact that there is so much to read means that one has to make choices, or more logical, rely on those who have read much.Don't get me wrong, I am an internationalist, as well as a reader of world literature. But well I know what the purpose is, and what the limitation is - simply put, there are about 5000 years give or take of excellent world literature, I would say about 2500 or so years of a good amount of productivity. Somewhere people are stuck - even what is deemed canonical is hardly consumable in 5 lifetimes if one reads with the will to reread.
Likely these "niches" involve national canons, which brings me back to my point.Which leaves one at a problem, and in general, people solve it in many ways. They find niches they like - me it was first Italian, now it is Chinese, but I am starting to return to the Italian with greater force. For others it is Roman authors, or Latin American authors, or whatever.
If someone is open-minded, though, or at least realizes that there is more to literature than what one prefers....Likewise I prefer poetry, most people prefer novels, some nonfiction, others drama - the possibilities are limitless.
Indeed, which is why the idea of a canon is "painfully obvious." One starts with realizing that even within one's preference, there may be too many things to read, so one is forced to exclude. If one realizes that one's preference is limiting and is inclined to move beyond it, one also realizes that there are too many works involved outside one's preference, so one is forced to exclude among those works, too.Now, where does the canonical come in? Well, assume every language pretty much has its own canon, with all world literature being vaguely connected, some more connected than others, and you have a concept of world canon - Persian music is the essential element to the understanding of Chinese Song Dynasty Poems, but you do not need to know much about that because the music has been lost.
Indeed. The more one knows, the more one realizes he knows so little, so his world broadens, but the number of works that he can access to know more about that world increases significantly. Ultimately, he is forced to rely on the idea of a canon.Likewise, Greek music was the fuel behind Greek poetry in the ancient days - how many of us know anything about the Lute?
But there are, unfortunately, so many other things to read in these other traditions. In addition, there may even be too many 18th- and 19th-century novels to consider, if not 18th-century English verse. Ultimately, one selects what critics recommend, or what one reads may already be what critics recommend as such works will likely be more accessible.Intertext is everywhere, but we all choose to focus not just because of necessity, but because of enjoyment and interest. I am bored sick of reading long 19th century novels, and am rather bored with 18th century English verse. In contrast, I get a lot of thrills out of other traditions - they just appeal to me, so I read them - I couldn't say much about Central Asian literature, but I could talk about East Asian literature, simply because of interest.
A guide is usually used because one lacks time and money to stay longer in a tourist spot and experiment.
Of course, one can look at, say, reviews of guides, and select one that doesn't "suck".
You know, the majority of guides are actually for people who are not going to those places? Just dream about it...
Of course, the majority of people only have Harold Bloom book at home. How many here have wasted their times with the majority (or all) works of Dante? Shakespeare? Cervantes? Emily Dickinson?Borges? Tolstoy? Kafka?
In the end the canon is by exclusion, knowing what to read means nothing. Knowing why is quite better...
You know, this is for Stlukes... Bioy and Borges talk. And they are mocking some people. Obviously, Bioy and Borges make Mortal and JBI (to not name other few guys here) humble pals. Then Bioy: You know, we are that snob that we do not respect the classics (not the word canon, not fashionable here in South America). Those others do. They do not even read it. We can say : Reading Tolstoy sucks (Borges did a few times) and it would mean nothing. But them? They are afraid even to say the word.
The need for a canon is painfully obvious: one cannot read everything, and there are critics who have read more than most and are in a better position to advice others on what to read.
What JBI and JCamilo are suggesting is that a universal Canon is impossible because a Canon assumes an all inclusive list of that which is essential reading... and this is all but an impossibility in a great many languages. How many more works of truly marvelous writing exist in the German, French or Italian language beyond those recommended in Bloom's Canon? If we expand the Canon to a universal scale, we are faced with an infinite wealth of worthy writing itself worthy of a Borges' tale.
Certainly, we can act as tourists. Sampling one or two books from each culture... and that is fine. But ultimately, most of us find the a certain culture or language and perhaps a certain genre speaks to us far more than others. Even if we are not scholars... we will often find ourselves focusing upon a limited range of literature. Like JBI, I tend to focus far more upon poetry than the novel. Indeed, I may actually tend to read theater or plays, non-fiction, and shorter forms of fiction more than I read novels. I've read Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Pushkin, and Checkov... but I'm not overly interested in delving deeper into Russian literature. I love Sterne, Swift, Voltaire, and Rousseau... but could do without most of the rest of the 18th century. I'm not overly interested in American literature after WWII with a few exceptions (Richard Howard, Cormac McCarthy, Anthony Hecht, etc...). I have little interest in Roman writings beyond Virgil, Ovid, and perhaps Horace, but I love the Greeks. I love the literature of the Renaissance and Baroque (Dante, Petrarch, Ronsard, Shakespeare, Spenser, Herrick, Cervantes) and the literature of Romanticism through Modernism... again especially poetry and especially from the English, French, Spanish, Italian, Latin-American and German oeuvres (Holderlin, Novalis, Goethe, Blake, Byron, Keats, Shelley, Tennyson, Yeats, Hugo, Baudelaire, Flaubert, Maupassant, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Mallarme,Valery, Proust, Garcia-Lorca, Neruda, Borges, Garcia Marquez, Hernandez, Vallejo, Machado, Alberti, Rilke, Hesse, Mann, Wilde, Pater, Montale, Calvino, etc...)
from the non-Western world I have special interest in Japanese and Middle-Eastern literature which mirrors my interest in the visual arts of those cultures. certainly, I recognize that Russia, China, Holland, Portugal, Australia, JBI's beloved Canada, Indonesia, India, Africa, Norway, Sweden, etc... all certainly have works worthy of reading... but my time is finite... and so I stick with that which brings me the greatest pleasure.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Which is exactly one of the themes of Borges, specially in tales like Funes.
I read novels written in English or in Chinese, but I do not read the translated versioln. In my opinion, Dream of the Red Chamber is, no doubt, outstanding all the other Chinese novels ever published, and I do believe, in near future, in China, there will be no novel better than it. If compare it to English novels I have read, it is a rival to the works of Charles Dickens or Shakespeare, and certainly better than Bronte Sisters or Jane Austen's novels. For the novels in other language I can not make comparison, because I have not read: do not understand the language and do not like translation. As to other Chinese novels, don't you bother to read.
Red Chamber is good. But I would not count out Jin Yong just yet.
Really? Jin Yong has the worst female characters in his book, if you want to call them characters - he has shallow characterization, and redundant plot schemes - he has action in every seen because he was serialized, even when it isn't coherent. I don't dispute him as a major author, but compared to the dream? Not even close by my count.
If one was looking for a modern contemporary author to compete, I think one would be best to look at Yu Hua, or Han Shaogong.
Reply With Quote
