In defence of the cannon

[LitNetIsGreat]

It seems quite a popular thing to attack the literary canon for a variety of reasons in a number of different circles these days, both from the general readers point of view and from within academia. I can understand and fully appreciate some of the arguments put forward against it, such as its tendency to support a white, middle class male demographic for instance. I am all in favour of challenging the canon by re-discovering minority demographics and adding these to the canon. I also fully support the notion that just because something is in the canon or labelled a “classic” we shouldn’t question its validity or have personal preferences within them. Of course we as individuals will naturally vary in what we enjoy and don’t enjoy reading, but this should not affect the status of the canon as it is, solely for that reason. We are not as individuals going to like all works that exist within the canon, but we should not let our personal preferences override our ability to judge value. There are certain authors and books well established within the literary canon that I can’t stand, but I still sit back and appreciate why others may do so and why it should rightly take its place there.

I am also not saying that we shouldn’t explore contemporary material, far from it, it is almost the duty of every reader to discover and promote new material of value, but defending the canon is by no means counter-productive to the exploration of new literature, criticising or eliminating past literature is helpful to nobody.

So I concede and support, for sure, certain reasons for attacking the canon, but despite of this there are a couple of arguments that I cannot agree with at best, and some which begin to boil my blood at worst, some of which are as follows:

1 Individual choice is more important that what the academics say is a classic, anything is of value if a reader enjoys it, all books are of the same value.

2 The canon is the canon only because academics in the past have made it so.

3 Belief in the canon is elitist/conservative/politically right-wing or supporting the ruling ideology.

4 All people are equally important in judging the merits of what constitutes literature.

1 Individual choice is more important that what the academics say is a classic, anything is of value if a reader enjoys it, all books are of the same value.

1 I have no arguments with what people enjoy reading, I fully support the individual right to read or do what they like, but that doesn’t automatically make what they are reading good literature just because they are reading it. Some books are better than others and some are a lot better than others, people can feel free to read trash, but they shouldn’t attack the canon in doing so, they have no case – all books are certainly not of the same value. Such arguments are quite absurd.

2 The canon is the canon only because academics in the past have made it so.

2 There are some merits to this argument but not much. It is true that the canon has in most cases being maintained by the academic circle but there is usually some ground for a book being established as part of the literary canon in the first place. Mostly this is down to the quality of the text or in other cases it is amongst the first of something, such as being instrumental in the development of the novel form for instance. The canon is not simply a random selection of books written by white middle class men.

3 Belief in the canon is elitist/conservative/politically right-wing or supporting the ruling ideology.

3 This is simply not so, at least for me anyway. The only thing I am interested in is the words on the page, the performance on the stage or whatever, and I am interested in sampling the very best that is on the table, that is all. Attacking the canon in order to attack the perceived elitist ideology is helpful to nobody and doesn’t do credit to the work in question.

4 All people are equally important in judging the merits of what constitutes literature.

4 Again along with the argument of books being of equal value such comments feel quite naïve to me. There seems to be this notion everyone is an equal judge of what constitutes good writing regardless of having any study in that field or not. Such notions do not circulate within other fields, even within the arts themselves, in dance for example, no one would overrule an experienced dance teacher’s opinion of a piece of ballet just for the hell of it. Anyone is more than allowed their own opinion, I am not saying otherwise, it is just that some opinions carry more weight than others, it is only natural that this should be so.

Reading books that are held in esteem by the literary canon is a great way to start to explore the world of literature. It is not by any means, the only way to do so, there is nothing wrong with blindly reading anything, I fully advocate self-exploration and learning to appreciate and to develop what constitutes good writing for yourself, free from any list of books (and actually I very rarely if ever consult the canon) but at the same time I don’t feel the need to blindly attack the canon simply because it seems fashionable to do so.

Feel free to share your opinion.

Typical canon list for example:
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtbloom.html
The Western Canon by Harold Bloom

Edit: Oh I would be interested to hear if you have experienced criticism of the canon within academic circles or elsewhere recently, thanks.

[promtbr]

Great idea for a thread.
I am old school myself, and am a fan of Harold Bloom, and the author is not quite dead yet for me. Fyre, Trilling, Leavis have as much to say to me as Barthes Derrrida, and his buds...

Before the onslaught of attacks and the endless famous thread sidetracking which inevitibly occurs here, I think a clear definition of terms would be beneficial. An agreed upon definition of:

Literature: (imo, to often in this forum, this term is miconstrued with "books" or just any writing in general)

Canon:

Literary Canon:

Anyone?

[Iago]

3 Belief in the cannon is elitist/conservative/politically right-wing or supporting the ruling ideology

3 This is simply not so, at least for me anyway. The only thing I am interested in is the words on the page, the performance on the stage or whatever, and I am interested in sampling the very best that is on the table, that is all. Attacking the cannon in order to attack the perceived elitist ideology is helpful to nobody and doesn’t do credit to the work in question.

Doesn't your answer essentially contradict what you said in [1]?

I have no arguments with what people enjoy reading, I fully support the individual right to read or do what they like, but that doesn’t automatically make what they are reading good literature just because they are reading
it.

In other words, you introduce an argument based on your personal "sampling" to claim that a canon isn't based on ruling ideology.

I generally agree with the rest of your arguments - and I DO agree that "a" canon is both necessary and usually an accurate representation of quality literature. But can you really convincingly argue that canons aren't based on patriarchal ideas about literature? Rossetti and Gilman, for instance, became part of the canon and are taught in English literature classes today not because they were accepted by their contemporary, male academics, but because of the feminist scholars that came many decades later...

[LitNetIsGreat]

Before the onslaught of attacks and the endless famous thread sidetracking which inevitibly occurs here, I think a clear definition of terms would be beneficial. An agreed upon definition of:

Literature: (imo, to often in this forum, this term is miconstrued with "books" or just any writing in general)

Canon:

Literary Canon:

Anyone?

We could just take the Harold Bloom as an example of the canon. With literature I am referring to high art, as much as people seem to scowl at that phrase in our postmodernist era, something more than the average pick and mix books.

Doesn't your answer essentially contradict what you said in [1]?
In other words, you introduce an argument based on your personal "sampling" to claim that a canon isn't based on ruling ideology.

No, I don't see how it does unless I'm not explaining myself enough, I often lose marks in essays for the same reason. The canon is in some small respects I suppose a product of the ruling elite, but many people take this much further into conspiracy land - "Shakespeare is studied in order to keep the masses down" sort of thing.

Also, five bonus points for anyone who noticed that I wrote "cannon" instead of "canon" for those big guns are dangerous things as well you know.

[JBI]

I'm against the notion of the canon myself, simply because of the way it is interpreted.

The existence of a canon is inevitable as long as literature is studied, an actual list however, is more harmful then beneficial.

Each person, even those academics who criticize the canon, carry a personal list of what they think are the "Great Books". They decided which books to write criticism on, and which books to teach to their students. That is the canon - a written list is a mere elitist, static representation of the dialog, and Harold Bloom's list in particular is a) a sales gimmick, and b) a one sided piece of the dialog, taking into account only those opinions that he thinks matters, in short, his personal canon.

Someone is bound to be left out if there is a canon. For that reason the actual existence of a canon cannot take a coherent shape. It is far better to allow the "canon" to function as a list of books within academic circles, specific to an extent to the academic, and institution, so that opinion is able to grow. I am ready to scrap half the roman authors, and most of the Greeks. Classicists will disagree, but really, they are only their because of their "classical status". In the same fashion, I am ready to scrap half of the mediocre American novels and poets that make the "canon", and also half the mediocre "British" ones.

The more I read, the more I feel the canon is a very English notion, which came about from a mix of British culture becoming a museum, and American Jingoist attitudes.

There has never really been a Canadian Canon - though there are Canadian classics that every academic knows about. I think literature functions better like that - one reads those books which are relevant to their area of expertise, and writes about them. As for the mediocre critics, who value works rather than write criticism, there opinion a) doesn't matter much, beyond increasing sales, and b) time will sort them out.

As for canonical standards, I think every person who has ever studied English knows something of the notion. Every professor has their own set of books, relative to their expertise, which they think central. That is the true form of the canon; I don't need to read 50 mediocre Gothic novels from England to be well read, and I don't think they need to exist as "canonical" to anyone outside of that specialty.

There is no "danger" of losing the canon, or any such rubbish either. I think many people here take Harold Bloom seriously, and think there actually are resenters trying to destroy the study of literature. There are, but his complaint is really that too many people are going against the previously established notions of good literature, in short, they are moving forward, and he is being left behind. The "canon" is changing, and he is reacting. There are radicals that try to break away completely from the past, but what is actually happening is the removal of most works from necessary reading, and an expansion of range of reading. I see no problem.


After all, time is passing. Classical deference only goes so far. We need to embrace the literature of our time, and the thought of our time too. I remember there was a poll on these boards, which came to a conclusion that a vast number of posters here read primarily classics, and few contemporary novels (many with the excuse that contemporary novels are all rubbish, or mostly rubbish). That's the first sign of a bankrupt culture, which is ironic to an extent, given contemporary times.

The canon does not exist. Canonical values do not exist. Each canon is a personal opinion, based on the opinions of others. There are great books, but books that are great can potentially become obsolete, and books that are not so great can eventually be claimed as great. John Donne was all but forgotten before T. S. Eliot. Now how many people are reading him? The point - any form of canon we have in our minds isn't actually beneficial. For a set of great books to exist, the set must be dynamic. As soon as one establishes a definitive list, like Bloom did, the canon ceases to be a matter of debate and intellectualism, and becomes a mere joke, a one sided opinion.

Either way, I hate his canon in general, as he seems to have left entire traditions out, on a personal scale, virtually all the Canadian tradition/anti-tradition, but also to an extent, more popular traditions, such as the Italian one.




Some books are better than others. Some people's opinions are stronger than others. Some books yield more from study than others. But no one list can possibly speak for all of them.

[Quark]

Of course we as individuals will naturally vary in what we enjoy and don’t enjoy reading, but this should not affect the status of the canon as it is, solely for that reason. We are not as individuals going to like all works that exist within the canon, but we should not let our personal preferences override our ability to judge value.

(Bold added)

Good thread, Neely. I'm always curious what people have to say about these things. First, though, let me see if I understand what you're saying. Are you try to say that enjoyment and value are two different things? If readers' enjoyment isn't what qualifies something as a classic, what do you think does? How does enjoyment differ from value? What do you think is a good example of literary value and why?

JBI brings up a good point:

Every professor has their own set of books, relative to their expertise, which they think central. That is the true form of the canon

He's taking the word "value" to mean something like "capable of holding critical interest." This kind of canon would be a list of books worth studying, as opposed to a list of books meant to be just casually read. Which canon are we talking about in this discussion?

[LitNetIsGreat]

(Bold added)

Good thread, Neely. I'm always curious what people have to say about these things. First, though, let me see if I understand what you're saying. Are you try to say that enjoyment and value are two different things? If readers' enjoyment isn't what qualifies something as a classic, what do you think does? How does enjoyment differ from value? What do you think is a good example of literary value and why?

I'll quickly answer this and get back to JBI's points later. I'm not necessary saying that enjoyment and value are two different things but they often can be. We would at first naturally place high value upon a work we enjoy more than ones we don't, but such a snap judgement is not necessarily taking other things into account. Some books such as say the works of Woolf require, no demand, much more than just a quick read. They need to be read over and examined in light of modernist ideals to be fully appreciated. Some guy in the street may enjoy "angry-detective-coffee-and-donut" books and would probably place them above Woolf in status, which would not be giving Woolf the credit she deserves. Just because someone may enjoy something that alone doesn't qualify it as classic literature.

The same applies the other way, personally I detest Fielding's Tom Jones but I can both appreciate Fielding's skill as a writer (if not properly developed to suit the novel form in Jones) and the novel's importance in the development of the novel itself, if you see what I mean.

I'll have to get back to you a little later on the last question, it is quite a big question and I haven't much time at present. Thanks for the interest though.

[LitNetIsGreat]

He's taking the word "value" to mean something like "capable of holding critical interest." This kind of canon would be a list of books worth studying, as opposed to a list of books meant to be just casually read. Which canon are we talking about in this discussion?

Oh, yes I had something like this in mind - the first point, but must dash, I'll be back later.

[Hank Stamper]

yes good topic. the canon obviously has its place, but i think should be looked at as it is - a product of a certain time and cultural viewpoint.. / ie a historical artefact

however i dont think it should be dismissed purely on these terms, as those works in the canon are of considerable literary merit and are obviously there for a reason

but we should recognise that all canons are subjective and therefore not definitive

[Quark]

I don't mean to overload you with posts since I know it's hard leading these LitNet discussion in your spare time, but your last post seemed to go in two directions. In the first block of text you say that:

We would at first naturally place high value upon a work we enjoy more than ones we don't, but such a snap judgement is not necessarily taking other things into account. Some books such as say the works of Woolf require, no demand, much more than just a quick read. They need to be read over and examined in light of modernist ideals to be fully appreciated.

This makes it sound like you're saying that enjoyment is similar to value--as long as it's an informed enjoyment. Readers who fully appreciate the books they're reading could equate their enjoyment of a work with its value. They wouldn't be making "snap judgments," rather they would be an informed choice about which book pleases more. Enjoyment, though, would still be the main qualification for a classic.

Yet, in the second block of text (I would say paragraph, but we can't indent so it's just a block) you introduce another idea:

The same applies the other way, personally I detest Fielding's Tom Jones but I can both appreciate Fielding's skill as a writer (if not properly developed to suit the novel form in Jones) and the novel's importance in the development of the novel itself, if you see what I mean.

When you say "appreciate Fielding's skill as a writer," it sounds like you're arguing that a writer's craft--and not a reader's enjoyment--is what makes something a classic. Are both reader's enjoyment and writer's skill both qualities of a classic, then? Or, did I screw something up?

Oh, yes I had something like this in mind - the first point, but must dash, I'll be back later.

Good, I think that's the better way to go.

[Bluenote]

The "canon" of literature has it's place. But as has already been noted is a product of the opinions of those canonising the literature in question , along with the corollary aspect of the sociopolitical and theological bent of times the book was published and of the ruling class of said times.

Great literature is great literature , most has stood the test of time or will , and history has many an example of a volume that was initially not well received and now resides in said "canon".

And as I said the "canon" has it's place , but labels beyond genre are inherently self limiting to a degree. I have *seen* examples of this , of students being "turned off to literature" by instructors who insisted that the stick only the the Classics and the " canon" even outside of class in their personal recreational reading.

And just opening the students mind to reading in the first place can provide opportunities for growth and eventual evolution into reading the Classics and the "canon" and understanding and enjoying literature in the general aspect.

For example I provide the case of an athlete sent to me many years ago , he had been promoted through the scholastic system based solely upon his athletic ability , until the point that his athletic eligibility began to suffer due to his grades. At said point he was perhaps reading at the fourth grade level.

My first question to him was " What sort of stories do you like?" the answer was " I like cowboys and Indians." I started him with Louis L'Amour ( The Sackett brand , this of course led him to other Western authors ( Max Brand and the like) which sparked his interest in the history of the American West , which eventually sparked his interest in authors such as Twain , which eventually led to not only an interest not only in American history as a whole but interest in the Southern authors but for balance the Northern authors and which led to the history of the industrial revolution in the Northeast , which of course led him to the various aspects of world history that affected the industrial revolution.

Today he is a professor of world history and literature. And one of the most gratifying things to me *EVER IN MY LIFE* is that he still posseses that copy of The Sackett Brand that I gave him , dogeared , worn out and eventually signed by L'Amour not long prior to his death.

He frequently takes it to class and waves it in front of his students and states " This is what started it all for me".

Had I initially started him with Proust , Melville etc. I'd have likely turned him right off and the result would have been entirely different.

I'm waxing longwinded here , my point being that it's a growth process.




B.

[JCamilo]

I think the canon is inevitable and irrelevant.
I think maybe JBI can help out and help to develop this slogan, so he does not need to explain it all again wheh the Canon topic arises...

Now, Neely, in my opinion defenses of literature (Or any higher art) are only relevant when, like Sidney or Shelley defenses of Poetry, when the piece has literary vallue as well. Other than that, I will always remember their own works are the best defense a great writer can have.

[mortalterror]

I'm against the notion of the canon myself, simply because of the way it is interpreted.

You are against the notion of the canon, simply because there aren't any Canadians in it.

I am ready to scrap half the roman authors, and most of the Greeks.

Cut out my heart. The Greek plays are the greatest literary creations ever written. I'd sooner remove Shakespeare, who covers much of the same ground. That's the real reason the canon shifts. There's a lot of duplication of effort going on, and very few truly original ideas. Many of our greatest works of art are interchangeable. I'm okay with that. If people are more comfortable reading Shakespeare than the Greeks, then at least they are being exposed to the maximum there is. If they don't wish to read the Aeneid they can get much the same thing from Milton. My problem is not with the substitution of works, but with the prevalent opinion that all works are equally open to exchange.

Although I do not subscribe to most of Bloom's opinions, I concur with him when he says that he is in favor of multiculturalism if it means Don Quixote, and not just whatever contemporary Latin American lesbian author has an agenda this week. I think it would be fine if sixty percent of our libraries were devoted to Asian works since that is roughly the proportion of their population on this planet, and I am sure they have their own Divine Comedies and Iliads.

[JBI]

Sidney's work is more philosophical than aesthetic - it's a direct response to Plato's accusation of poets as liars, and it tries to justify the existence of poetry within the ideal republic, by offering a religious spin to it. Shelley's seems more of an ars poetica than defense - he merely was defending himself, it seems.


Either way though, as Camilo put it, the "inevitable and irrelevant" generally sums it up. There will be most revered texts, as there will be more valued opinions within society, and more valued people. There doesn't need to be a definitive list to say so.


The only real purpose, it would seem, is from a publishing point of view, to make those texts available, and to advertise them. Penguin does a good enough job about it, and if they keep selling, will continue to do a good job about it. Their translations, if they are good ones, are by academics, as are their introductions. It eventually ends up that academics control the perception of the classic text, to an extent also, without having a formal canon.

Harold Bloom's list has good books, but really, he can stick Walter Savage Landor on there, but not Pasoli, the founder of modern Italian Poetry, pretty much. It's almost embarassing what he left out (whole languages).

Besides which though, that is 3000 works in the "WESTERN" canon. He left out more than half the world. Is such a list even practical? Does such a list even make sense in the 21st century?

I'm Canadian, the majority of people around where I live have their traditional backgrounds excluded completely from that list. How, as a Canadian, am I supposed to get a "sense of identity" or whatever from a list that excludes everyone around me, including the Canadian born Canadians, let alone French Canadians (Anne Hebert hardly speaks for them all).


All these lists do, I think, is emphasize the American, and historically European, hegemony over literature. It's hard enough as it is in Canada, when a Pulitzer prize makes front page news, but a Canadian novel of better caliber isn't even reviewed to gain publicity. Such lists take it one step further, by telling people they are stupid, or a "resenter" for not reading the "best books" for "aesthetic purposes", all of which happen to reinforce the superiority of one culture over another.

[JBI]

You are against the notion of the canon, simply because there aren't any Canadians in it.



Cut out my heart. The Greek plays are the greatest literary creations ever written. I'd sooner remove Shakespeare, who covers much of the same ground. That's the real reason the canon shifts. There's a lot of duplication of effort going on, and very few truly original ideas. Many of our greatest works of art are interchangeable. I'm okay with that. If people are more comfortable reading Shakespeare than the Greeks, then at least they are being exposed to the maximum there is. If they don't wish to read the Aeneid they can get much the same thing from Milton. My problem is not with the substitution of works, but with the prevalent opinion that all works are equally open to exchange.

Although I do not subscribe to most of Bloom's opinions, I concur with him when he says that he is in favor of multiculturalism if it means Don Quixote, and not just whatever contemporary Latin American lesbian author has an agenda this week. I think it would be fine if sixty percent of our libraries were devoted to Asian works since that is roughly the proportion of their population on this planet, and I am sure they have their own Divine Comedies and Iliads.

You misunderstood me. I'm just of the mind that The Golden a[s]s isn't as important these days as the work of Lu Hsun. You know as well as I, that Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, and the underrated (it would seem) Aeschylus are going nowhere anytime soon. But all those classicists, still devoted to the fragments of some long dead person who was said to be great in his time is a waste of time. There are better things out there, and classical reverence to that extent does nothing but waste valuable effort that could be spent researching and appreciating, and translating more relevant texts.

All the sweating over Latin works is the same. It seems we can sweat over those works, which have been translated countless times, but we can't approach the works of the most major Arab poets, who are as Western as the Greeks were, except that Islamophobia has led to the lack of translation and appreciation of their works.


Harold Bloom's list has more half-rate minor poets from the English speaking world, than first-rate foreign language poets. I find that despicable. Crashaw may be central to the Rennaissance, but how is he more important than Pascoli, or Du Fu, or Li Bai, or wang Wei, or hundreds of others.



Bloom's central argument is there is not enough time to be wasted on mediocre authors. I concur. Axe the mediocre, or not-so-important authors from your list, expand it to conclude the rest of the world, and maybe there would be a purpose to the list. But as it is, the artificial oral lists that formulate in academics' heads seem better. As it is he has 3000 works from about 500 authors. If it was 3000 works from world-wide authors, then that would be the list of ideal reading. But such a list cannot be constructed, so it becomes pointless to try. You'd need to kill off more than half of his canon to achieve that, and like you said, that would be tearing out your heart.



But I think another problem arises. What if aesthetics are relative to culture, as they are? The canon would necessarily have to shift with that; a written canon cannot do that, an abstract oral canon can, and does. Bloom's list is a mere list, not a canon, as no one but Bloom should really subscribe to it.