On Tackling Bloom's Western Canon

[milktea]

http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtbloom.html

Has anyone done this? If so how long did it take? I'm on my second year now and only just beginning Middle Ages >_< I estimated 5 years initially, but I realize now it will take much longer.

I am keen on finding other readers who have done this, are doing this, or plan to do this in hopes of forming an canon-readers e-circle/support group.

[herzog]

I have to say, that is one hell of an undertaking.

Good luck.

[stlukesguild]

That list is something of a lifetime reading plan... and it is but one man's list (albeit a very well-read and discerning man) of what books he found to be essential. It avoids the whole of non-Western literature a as you begin to read many of these books you will be undoubtedly be led to other books that did not make the lists while in other instances the opposite will be true and the reading of one book may turn you off of several others. It is a good starting place... but nothing more.

[OrphanPip]

Some of the authors on that list are going to be really difficult to find in translation too.

Anne Hebert, who despite being probably the greatest French Canadian poet, and the only French Canadian on Bloom's list, is next to impossible to find in translation. She pretty much only appears in anthologies of Canadian literature.

I find it difficult to think of any one person who would be interested in every author on that list. I find Dryden and Defoe intolerably boring. On the other hand, I greatly enjoy Edmund White's fiction (a central figure in American gay lit), but find it hard to imagine most people being comfortable with the explicit homosexuality of his work.

[Virgil]

http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtbloom.html

Has anyone done this? If so how long did it take? I'm on my second year now and only just beginning Middle Ages >_< I estimated 5 years initially, but I realize now it will take much longer.

I am keen on finding other readers who have done this, are doing this, or plan to do this in hopes of forming an canon-readers e-circle/support group.

Are you crazy? I won't live long enough to do all that.

Thanks for the link though. That's a good list to have.

[JBI]

Some of the authors on that list are going to be really difficult to find in translation too.

Anne Hebert, who despite being probably the greatest French Canadian poet, and the only French Canadian on Bloom's list, is next to impossible to find in translation. She pretty much only appears in anthologies of Canadian literature.

I find it difficult to think of any one person who would be interested in every author on that list. I find Dryden and Defoe intolerably boring. On the other hand, I greatly enjoy Edmund White's fiction (a central figure in American gay lit), but find it hard to imagine most people being comfortable with the explicit homosexuality of his work.

There is actually a very sizable translation entitled Poems that should be available. There was also a shorter selection done by F. R. Scott which is very, very short, though bilingual, and probably impossible to get a hold of outside of a library.


In terms of the list - the list is rather meh - too many books that aren't essentially really. The poetry is probably the best selection of the lot, but the last Chaotic age after about 1950 gets kind of crappy. The rest of the list is rather cliché and pretty much standard, besides a bit of over-emphasis on English literature (given that he is an English reader).


Personally though, I wouldn't really want to read that list, though I have read probably 90% of the poetry outside of the modern era in his English sections. It is good as a suggestion guide, but to adhere to it?

Lets just say a strong idiom for translating from Persian, Arabic, Japanese, and Chinese has emerged, as well as a more easily and older tradition of Indian writing, and other forms. What that means is that English is really no longer, at least on this side of the world (Western Hemisphere) a European or "Western" language. In addition to that, other languages like French, have also emerged as non-specifically Western, in that they have strong traditions of translation.

What that means really is that this list, if one wishes to explore all of great literature, is a bit dated, in terms of practicality and relevance.

I like to think of the publication of Pound's Cathay as the point really in which, at least for English, the notion of Western really collapsed. Beyond that too, the code of the Bible and Roman/Greek classics has been merged, or abandoned with or for other codes and roots - the whole notion of Western literature has been dying for quite a time, and with good cause.


If you indeed try to go through the list, I would recommend skipping books that don't interest you, as you will go through it much faster - no point reading Clarissa (I think that's on the list) if you find it going nowhere, as Johnson put it, "Why, Sir, if you were to read Richardson for the story, your impatience would be so much fretted that you would hang yourself." (or something along those lines anyway).

Just read what interests you - no need to stick to somebody's list - the goal of the foundation in canons is so that you can begin to make your own mind up, not so that you can have your mind made up for you.

[DanielBenoit]

As has been said before, the list is far too focused on English literature. Now of course it is the Western Canon, but to call the list essential is to throw out most non-Western essential reading. I was just in the bookstore today looking over Bloom's list and was rather put off by the fact that the Greeks dominate the first section, whilst classical Chinese and Middle-Eastern texts are scarce, with only the most foundational texts being included (Tao Te Ching, Bhavagad Gita, etc.) For example, I didn't catch The Book of Songs, Rumi, Du Fu or Ferdowsi. Yes it is a Western Canon, but to leave these important figures out is to neglect half of the Global Canon.

EDIT: I was under the impression that Bloom had claimed his list to be definitive reading. This is not a criticism of a Western canon, merely of Eurocentric reading.

[Modest Proposal]

As has been said before, the list is far too focused on English literature. Now of course it is the Western Canon, but to call the list essential is to throw out most non-Western essential reading. I was just in the bookstore today looking over Bloom's list and was rather put off by the fact that the Greeks dominate the first section, whilst classical Chinese and Middle-Eastern texts are scarce, with only the most foundational texts being included (Tao Te Ching, Bhavagad Gita, etc.) For example, I didn't catch The Book of Songs, Rumi, Du Fu or Ferdowsi. Yes it is a Western Canon, but to leave these important figures out is to neglect half of the Global Canon.

This post doesn't really make sense. How can the list compiling the western canon be faulted for neglecting the global canon?

That is like saying the list of the best movies neglects eight-tracks.

Read the list and follow it for what it is. Bloom admits that it is his list and that it is not complete nor concrete. He also very clearly titles it the western canon. If you are interested in reading the western canon, this list is a great place to start. If you want to find the best mini-golf courses than this list is really poor and shows Mr. Blooms litrocentric ideology...

[DanielBenoit]

This post doesn't really make sense. How can the list compiling the western canon be faulted for neglecting the global canon?

That is like saying the list of the best movies neglects eight-tracks.

Read the list and follow it for what it is. Bloom admits that it is his list and that it is not complete nor concrete. He also very clearly titles it the western canon. If you are interested in reading the western canon, this list is a great place to start. If you want to find the best mini-golf courses than this list is really poor and shows Mr. Blooms litrocentric ideology...

That's why I acknowledged it to be purely a Western canon. I am speaking in the context of the fact that if one were to use Bloom's list as a reading list for they're life, they would be deeply negligent of other cultural canons. I'm not criticizing Bloom, I'm rather in a sense criticizing the OP's choice in sticking to just the Western canon. Bloom's list is great, but not a list to live by.

Besides, if Bloom is including some non-Western writings in his 'Canon' we cannot think the analogy of movies and eight-tracks to be very genuine.

[JBI]

This post doesn't really make sense. How can the list compiling the western canon be faulted for neglecting the global canon?

That is like saying the list of the best movies neglects eight-tracks.

Read the list and follow it for what it is. Bloom admits that it is his list and that it is not complete nor concrete. He also very clearly titles it the western canon. If you are interested in reading the western canon, this list is a great place to start. If you want to find the best mini-golf courses than this list is really poor and shows Mr. Blooms litrocentric ideology...

Litrocentric my ***. The concept of East and West is hardly defined as such. What he should have said was the "French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and English canon." The Moors were far more Western in Europe than the Germans were.

As it happens though, Aristotle was from Egypt - not a Western country by this definition - and Aristotle was rediscovered through Eastern means. The emphasis on a "separate" tradition is totally contrived.

By West it really seems to mean 4 countries, and then later a fifth, the US. Hardly a representative canon of anything, besides the ethnocentricity of education in the first half of the 20th century.

To suggest, for instance, that Rumi is less important to the so called Western tradition than half of those Elizabethan poets is just a plain old insult to literature itself.


There is no real West, and therefore, there really isn't a Western canon - there is merely a world Canon, in the sense that both Europe and Asia were defined heavily by cross-Eurasian exchanges for hundreds of years. The emergence of English as a literary language comes hand in hand with the emergence of direct contact with the 'New World', but also with more direct contact with the "East."

What is there to suggest then, that Chinese Buddhist classics, which brought the emergence of tea culture, and then the porcelain trade had less of an effect on English letters as Michael Drayton - the concept of the English gentleman is so entwined with tea (sometimes even referred to in England, so I am told, by the Chinese name of Cha) that one can assume that without tea there is no literature dealing with such topics. But that is a stretch example - direct contact with Middle Eastern sources was much more defined - Erasmus himself in his adage "War is Sweet for those who don't know it" Already was playing with the exchanges. The concept of an isolated West is a fallacy - quite simply, half of Europe was controlled by foreign "Eastern" forces at one time or another.



But that doesn't push the point of argument - what is it about the so called "Western canon" that justifies it as something which should be read with the exclusion of "Eastern canons", and what about it makes it so relevant today over other traditions? That is the main flaw - the fact that for a mixed-Jewish Canadian who studies Chinese in Toronto, Western is neither more important than Eastern, nor a sense of pride or identification. And, judging by the emergence of such forms as Haiku even in very good poetry, I think it is safe to say that the US for the most part would tend to agree.

Though, from what I am told, in Europe they still in some places regard themselves as the centre of the universe, so perhaps there "Western" means something.

[stlukesguild]

As has been said before, the list is far too focused on English literature. Now of course it is the Western Canon, but to call the list essential is to throw out most non-Western essential reading. I was just in the bookstore today looking over Bloom's list and was rather put off by the fact that the Greeks dominate the first section, whilst classical Chinese and Middle-Eastern texts are scarce, with only the most foundational texts being included (Tao Te Ching, Bhavagad Gita, etc.) For example, I didn't catch The Book of Songs, Rumi, Du Fu or Ferdowsi. Yes it is a Western Canon, but to leave these important figures out is to neglect half of the Global Canon.

This post doesn't really make sense. How can the list compiling the western canon be faulted for neglecting the global canon?

I must agree. I wouldn't be likely to fault a survey of Western Art History for not having included the Taj Mahal, Ankhor Wat, Utamaro, Hokusai, or Li Ch'eng any more than I would fault a survey of German literature for not including Proust, Dante, and Shakespeare.

The concept of East and West is hardly defined as such.

At least according to JBI. The rest of the world seems to have a set notion as to what Western Vs Non-Western culture amounts to.

The Moors were far more Western in Europe than the Germans were.

As it happens though, Aristotle was from Egypt - not a Western country by this definition - and Aristotle was rediscovered through Eastern means. The emphasis on a "separate" tradition is totally contrived.

By West it really seems to mean 4 countries, and then later a fifth, the US. Hardly a representative canon of anything, besides the ethnocentricity of education in the first half of the 20th century.

Sorry JBI, but you don't get to define what is or is not Western Civilization. We can all nit-pick about specifics; we can all rail about the exclusion of the Moorish/Islamic/Andalusian contributions to Western culture or argue that Greece is part of the East or that Egypt and the Hebrew Biblical author are not part of the West... but it comes down to what art and literature has been absorbed by Western culture and has become part of the concept of a narrative of Western Civilization. Certainly, these divisions are becoming less and less clear as a result of travel, trade, shifting populations... and the simple fact that Asian, South America, Africa, etc... are no longer so inaccessible. There is still, however, a great inaccessibility to the culture... especially to the literature... as a result of inadequate translations.

One argument against Bloom is that his list is heavily weighted toward English language literature. That is just sheer ignorance. Of course its weighted toward the literature of the English language. It was written by an English-speaking author. Just how much of the literature of France or Italy or Spain is available to the English language reader? Certainly, I have access to the most major authors of France in English translations... but how many writers of real merit who are of a somewhat lesser tier... a French equivalent of William Wilkie Collins or George Herbert or Thomas Traherne (as opposed to Shakespeare, Dickens, and Blake) are unavailable? As the language becomes more removed from contact with the English-speaking world the number of available translations decreases. How many Polish, Hungarian, or Norwegian writers are available in English? In other words... Bloom might have greatly expanded his list to include far more Spanish, French, Italian, Hebrew, and Russian writers... but of what use would this be if these works are completely inaccessible to the English-language reader? And if the access to the literature of France or Spain or Germany is so limited, just imagine how limited it is to the entire worlds of Chinese, Japanese, Persian, Indian, and Arabic literature.

There is no real West...

There's no West... there's no East... there's no France or no Germany... after all, these nationalistic boundaries are just as fluid... as indebted to the whims of history and shifting borders. But really... this is nothing but an intellectual Onanism. The vast majority of the world has a clear concept of what is included in Western Civilization and all Bloom's list offered was a list of what one reader felt were the essential works of that culture... not something insidious that suggests that the literature of the rest of the world is irrelevant or inferior. If I recall correctly, Bloom admitted his own lack of qualifications for including literature of the East. I doubt that you or I or anyone else here is more qualified. If anything, we can but offer a few suggestions confined to the few works we have read that have been well-translated.

But that doesn't push the point of argument - what is it about the so called "Western canon" that justifies it as something which should be read with the exclusion of "Eastern canons", and what about it makes it so relevant today over other traditions?

Whether you like it or not, the populations of Europe and North-America are rooted in the political systems, the philosophy, the religion, the traditions, the culture, and the population of the West. Yes, the Middle-East and Africa, and Asia have all made major contributions to Western culture... but whether you like it or not... whether you imagine we should all be embracing Chinese culture or whether I am enamored of Japanese, Persian, and Islamic culture... none of this will not change the fact that the contributions of France, England, Spain, etc... are more central to the current reality of civilization in the United States or Canada. The fact that you are "a mixed-Jewish Canadian who studies Chinese in Toronto" misses the fact you also speak English and live in an English-speaking nation (with the addition of French) under a government rooted in Western European notions of law, human rights, education, etc... which would seemingly make you far more indebted to Europe than China or India... but of course you can pull out all sorts of inane ephemera and discuss the development of all the European languages from Indo-European roots, but it seems you are merely arguing for the sake of arguing.

[mal4mac]

http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtbloom.html

Has anyone done this? If so how long did it take? I'm on my second year now and only just beginning Middle Ages >_< I estimated 5 years initially, but I realize now it will take much longer.

I am keen on finding other readers who have done this, are doing this, or plan to do this in hopes of forming an canon-readers e-circle/support group.

I've had Bloom since it first came out, and have read it several times. I didn't, initially, take him too seriously and just used him as a vague indication of who might be worth reading, but based my reading mostly on previous happy experiences. So I've read most of Tolstoy and Dickens, and several other "great novelists" - Cervantes, Hardy, Eliot, Austen, Conrad, Joyce, Trollope,...

Bloom was a very useful steer, in that he was always nudging me to read classic authors rather than the latest trendy modern author. That vastly improved my enjoyment of reading. He was also a great steer in other ways, so I think you are right to place such great value on his book -- just ignore his list and re-read the main body of the text.

In recent years I've tried to "get into" some of Bloom's more difficult recommendations, with *some* joy. I found mixing my reading made things much easier. For instance: tackle a difficult author *and* read Dickens or Tolstoy at the same time.

To make your task doable in five years (maybe!) then forget about the list! Bloom has disowned it anyway. Concentrate on his recommendations in the main body of the book. Also, concentrate on finding "readable" translations.

Last year I evolved a resolution to read all of Bloom's 'main body' recommendations, so I'd be more than happy to join in with your group.

[wessexgirl]

I couldn't agree more St Lukes. If you want a list deriving from the rest of the world, then don't go for the Western Canon. I really can't understand the logic behind having a go at that list for not doing what it doesn't set out to do. It's not rocket science........!

As for some of the names mentioned outside of the WC, I haven't even heard of them. Now I know I will get slated for admitting that, when I have, what I think, is a very good knowledge of literature, (after all it's my job as well as my interest). But surely only those specialising in literature from around the world would be completely knowledgeable about some of them. I'm sure if we were all studying world literature we could bandy names around, willy nilly (so to speak ), but all it proves is that you know a few names from other cultures, but you can't seem to grasp the basic tenet of a list of the Western Canon, that it contains....wait for it.......and this may surprise you.... literature from the West.

[JBI]

What is the West St. Lukes - give me a clear border. As it is, Russia, for the most part was under the same rule as China for years. I don't see any Eastern European classics on in his canon (besides near the end), and quite frankly, the canon might as well be called The English French Italian Spanish German canon. So tell me, where is this west you speak of? Even something like manuscript illumination in the rather isolated middle ages was not immune to "non-western" influence, and we must remember that the bulk of the first stage of his canon was preserved in either Alexandria or written in what is now Israel.


And don't say according to JBI either - just because you see the world as divided doesn't mean the rest of the world does. Bloom is rather alone in his insistence of such a division, and he is certainly the exception to common trends, not the norm, though you of course have called all modern criticism nonsense or rubbish in the past, and claim to not read it, so we can't fault you for not knowing that.


The argument of a certain special place, or uniqueness, or isolated tradition of politics is arguably contrived too. Simply put, Machiavelli in his prince held the Turkish model as the prime example of successful governing. Leibniz was preoccupied too with Chinese, as he thought the language a "natural" language, and simply put, it is said that of the two books Columbus brought with him on his voyage, one was the Bible and the second Marco Polo.

But of course, this would be nothing without the fact that according to Bacon's discussed great technological findings of his era, all somehow link back to China. The renaissance itself now is being argued to have been at least facilitated by the Chinese fleets that begun arriving in 1409. But lets not reject the fact that Turkish influence had been present in Europe since well before the Renaissance.


Perhaps you are right in suggesting that, for instance, Renaissance Italian painting was a specifically Italian development, but how long will we say that lasted, and can it not be suggested that the continents direct contact with Islam facilitated it? The Doge's palace in Venice for instance, although mostly remade after severe fire, betrays a vast array of paintings featuring direct conflict with Turkey. Are we to suggest no contact was happening?


Quite simply put, I think your idea of west is anachronistic - from what I understand, such views of history have been out of fashion for a while now - that's the purpose of the canon, because quite simply, there is no more grounding for an East or West.

By extension to, we can say there is no specific tradition. What that means really, is there is nothing that isolates - the same Bible influenced all sides of the world, and the same goes for the Ramayana, or any other number of texts.


What Bloom essentially did was use linguistics to impose a strong barrier between cultures, because, quite simply, in studying literature, he favors a Freudian reading, which does not take into account other forms of cultural expression or exchange within the time periods of the texts' composition. In that sense, German becomes a Western language, whereas the Turkish-influenced clothes the people writing the texts are wearing, and the Turkish influenced music they are listening to, and the Turkish influenced food they are eating, and the Turkish influenced paintings they are viewing are seen as merely secondary, and somehow untouched, or, perhaps in Bloom's argument, inconsequential and not substantial enough to "pollute" the western purity.

As for the last bit of your argument, they speak English in India, does that make it a Western country as well? What about the West Indies, or now China, which within 50 years probably will have more English speakers than anywhere else in the world, given that everybody there studies English (though of course not very well right now).

Or why don't we take it further; French speaking Vietnamese people automatically are Western, North Africa is part of the west, as it speaks French.

Or, we could have more fun with this, lets say everywhere where the Bible reigns supreme as central text. Well, where better than Modern day South Korea - a Western country by that definition I am sure. Or perhaps it has to do with literary influence, or economic strength, or any other factor?

Tell me, what makes English a Western language, and Canada have "Western Values". Technically, the official policy of this little country here is Multiculturalism - I don't see how the Western values really factor in, or are you suggesting that the Biblical code developed in the Middle East is somehow a Western construction now, or that law in itself, and rights of humans is somehow monopolized by Europeans?

As it is, Canadian literature isn't really included in any sort of Western canon, and French Canadians are even worse off. But then again, Bloom has stated more than once that he thinks the future of American intellectual and artistic life is probably going to begin to be dominated by new immigrants coming from the so called "East", so even the ethnocentric glue keeping this scheme together, by his admission, seems to be crumbling.


Lets be honest - there has essentially been a long line of contact from Portugal all the way through to Korea since the Middle ages. The presence of Jewish and Christian places of worship in 7th century Chang'an (modern day Xi'an) China attests to it. It just so happened that the "West" as it were took a longer time benefiting from it.

[milktea]

That's why I acknowledged it to be purely a Western canon. I am speaking in the context of the fact that if one were to use Bloom's list as a reading list for they're life, they would be deeply negligent of other cultural canons. I'm not criticizing Bloom, I'm rather in a sense criticizing the OP's choice in sticking to just the Western canon. Bloom's list is great, but not a list to live by.

Besides, if Bloom is including some non-Western writings in his 'Canon' we cannot think the analogy of movies and eight-tracks to be very genuine.

Hello? I never stated in my post that I was exclusively reading from this canon; I didn't even imply this.

Bloom included non-Western works which, according to him, influenced Western literature. And to quote Bloom's preface to the list: "The immense wealth of ancient Chinese literature is mostly a sphere apart from Western literary tradition and is rarely conveyed adequately in the translations available to us."

For the record, I'm not trying to start a Eastern slash Global versus Western canon debate, and I don't give a squat about movies or eight tracks. I just want to find others who are interested in reading Bloom's list or who have been there and done that. Can we stick to that topic please?

Edit: mal4mac, thank you for your reply. Hopefully others who are interested in even reading a part of the list won't be scared off by the OT debate going on in this thread. As I said, I've only read works from the theocratic age, but I have yet to read anything from the list that I did not like. I figure my opinion will change come the Democratic and Chaotic age (especially the latter). I don't like Dickens or James Joyce ^_^; That said, I had to read these authors to decide I didn't like them.

After reading the Bible in its entirety I find myself less patient when being subject to a bible-thumping best hits quotation session from Christians who haven't. I don't like when people argue about what they are ignorant about--the same goes for this list. For those who find this book list 'worthless', I can only assume that you have actually read the majority of books on the list to be so dismissive. If not please refrain from muddying this thread with your prejudices. I have only read a fraction and would like to form my own opinion about the majority of works listed here.