Canonization

[Erichtho]

There have been many threads about canons, readings lists, classics; but still I would like to ask again: what is a classic? Or better: how does a book become a classic?

Because...well, because I actually don't believe that merely "objective" criterias lead to canonization. I have always had the impression that a book becomes a classic, that canons are established via discourse of readers, inter-subjectively, to say so. I think that we, the readers, compose the reading lists, discuss them, change them - and by doing so accept them in the first place, even if only as starting point for discussion (indeed even non-readers acknowledge the existence of so-called classics in literature).

Of course primarily it's the quality of a work that matters - but criterias of defintion of that quality differ and change, both between cultures and between times, so that certain books and authors vanish silently, while others are introduced into the canon anew or for the first time.

One can observe this easily when the question is raised who of the authors that are still alive will become a classic one day - there are many different answers to that question, and all can be nothing more than good hopes and assumptions, since literary-wise quite a few people could get there, but who will be there is something we simply cannot know for sure.

I don't know how many new books are published each year, but there are definitely too many to keep any kind of overview - even if I read only contemporary literature (what I don't do!), it would be impossible to see a path in the jungle of new releases. I read the feuilletons of newspapers, I listen to my friends' recommendations, and look for other suggestions, e.g. in these forums, still the vast part of new books passes unnoticed.

After all, is it arbitrarily then, nothing more than word-of-mouth recommendation? Or how does canonization function? What do you think?

Edit: Highlighting.

[Dark Muse]

That is an interesting question. I think a classic is a book the stands the test of time. A book which becomes immortalized, and does not just get swept away into the world of unknown and forgotten. As well as a book that even today people can still find some relevance, a book that can be understood and related to oppose to a book that perhaps may only be relevant in context to when it was written.

If there is still an Earth in the future, I think the books written today can become classics to future generations, if they are still actively by a wide population and have content and depth which can lend itself to intellectual discussion and have something which people can learn from, or taking something away from.

Books that offer something more than just momentary entertainment, though of course it is very subjective just how one interprets that or what it means.

[MorpheusSandman]

There is no easy answer to this. I think, perhaps, the easiest way of looking at is is on a generational timeline. People read a book, they pass it on to the next generation, they read the book, and pass it on to the next. Works gain status when they're introduced and accepted into the scholarly lexicon, when people deem them worthy of study and discussion. And when that happens each new generation discovers them anew. Sometimes this happens from the beginning, sometimes legacies grow slowly over time, sometime what's incredibly important at one time later fades as future generations say it has no relevance.

It's certainly not an exact science, but one can see a pattern to it in that works that last tend to be those either with incredible richness fit for in-depth study and discussion, influential works that inspired countless future writers, originators, innovators, etc. If you look at any list you'll always find books which anyone can make an easy argument for why they're there on any number of levels. With newer works the jury is usually still out.

[Erichtho]

I think a classic is a book the stands the test of time. A book which becomes immortalized, and does not just get swept away into the world of unknown and forgotten. As well as a book that even today people can still find some relevance, a book that can be understood and related to oppose to a book that perhaps may only be relevant in context to when it was written.


This isn't what I'm asking. I want to know why a certain book stands the test of time and doesn't get swept away.
You say a book becomes immortalized, but isn't that too big of a word? It would mean that is has become immune to criticism and has a granted place in the world of "classics", quite opposite to what I wrote: that there are also books that used to be classics and then cease to be. Or do you not think that each new generation gets rid of some books and adds some because they lost/gained relevance in the meantime?


If there is still an Earth in the future, I think the books written today can become classics to future generations, if they are still actively by a wide population and have content and depth which can lend itself to intellectual discussion and have something which people can learn from, or taking something away from.

Classics are read by a wide population? I think you are too optimistic here. The average person is nowadays already in a minority position for just reading occasionally a work of light fiction, to say nothing of classics to whom the vast majority of the population is only exposed to as part of compulsory education.


Books that offer something more than just momentary entertainment, though of course it is very subjective just how one interprets that or what it means.

But do not more books offer "more than just momentary entertainment" than just so-called classics?

[PeterL]

After all, is it arbitrarily then, nothing more than word-of-mouth recommendation? Or how does canonization function? What do you think?



Well, yes it is essentially arbitrary. There are many books that have the literary value to be part of the canon, but they were relegated to the dust bin instead, at least for now. There are no standards for what the canon requires, and the preferences shift over time. A few decades agoRobert Browning was completely ignored, but his wife was widely honored; that changed, and now Robert is widely studied, and Elizabeth is ignored.

Originally I was going to be sarcastic about this and suggest that the canon is determined over late night drinks, but the process is more random; although I am sure that some professors decide to push some writers after several hours of drinking. I suspect that Wordsworth has been retained only because the professors said: "We suffered through that crap, so the students should also."

[carlin08]

Institutions (specifically the college and high school levels) are a major reason why certain canonical texts continue to be studied and why others fall to the wayside. The criteria for choosing which works to preserve and which to neglect do, as many of you have already pointed out, vary according to societal customs, traditions, and values. But what seems to remain consistent in terms of influencing the longevity of a work is what MorpheusSandman says: "that works that last tend to be those either with incredible richness fit for in-depth study and discussion, influential works that inspired countless future writers, originators, innovators, etc."

Who gets to decide which texts encompass these qualities is more selective, and this is precisely what's problematic about the whole notion of the canon. It is not just any reader who gets to decide what a classic is. Arguably, it is the academic institutions that are filled with creditable literary scholars and critics that essentially make up the canon. It is not we, the readers, who possess that power.

[MorpheusSandman]

Or do you not think that each new generation gets rid of some books and adds some because they lost/gained relevance in the meantime? This certainly happens, and it seems to be circular. For some reason each new generation finds something in Shakespeare. There's something in his words and statements that are universal and transcend all limited contexts. The same can be said for most classics. I'm reading War and Peace now, and my culture and society is completely different from that of early 19th century Russia, yet there are so many subtle truths to be found in Tolstoy's epic. So much vivid reality that's able to take me to a place that, even though it's completely foreign to me, feels utterly familiar.

[JCamilo]

The test of time must be a bit more than one or another generation, no?
Plus I really think no true classic (ok, people can call classic a lot of things)ever are forgotten. It is not about being published and read yet, it about being alive in language, tradition, culture, influence despite no reading. Take Juvenal, for example? How many read Juvenal ? Yet, his place in history is secure, because you will say breed and circus and re-create his concept every single day. You can not, no future generation can, erase what is too be.
And yeah, few people read classics. (And the canon is the object, indeniable. Analysing it is what is subjective. Books in the canon? Not a democratical, thanks good, option)

[stlukesguild]

I want to know why a certain book stands the test of time and doesn't get swept away.

In the simplest terms this happens because later generations feel this book is better than others. What we call "canonization" is a process that involves the opinions of successive generations of artists, art lovers, and art "experts" (by which we might mean critics, historians, teachers, etc...). What is common about all of these persons involved is that they have a deep-seated interest in a given art and as such they have invested time, and effort... and even money into the study/appreciation/understanding of the same. Like a good many literature lovers I probably have more 20th century literature on my shelves than the whole rest of history combined (or close to it). We might argue that this is because there are far more humans alive today and as such there are far more writers and far more good writers. Perhaps. But to a larger extent it has to do with the fact that time has not yet filtered out all but the finest. By the way of example I have more books by 20th century Italian poets (Pavese, Saba, Ungaretti, Quasimodo, Campana, Montale, Passolini, Porta, and a few more) than I do of Renaissance Italian poets (Dante, Cavalcanti, Petrarch, Tasso, Ariosto, and Michelangelo). And the latter is a period of some 250-300 years. Certainly there are other poets equal to Saba and Porta and Passolini that were active during the Italian Renaissance... but I would probably only be aware of these if I were a specialist. With time, those with the most invested in literature decide which books are the "best" and the strongest representation of their era. This filtering process is a necessity because none of us... no matter how voracious our reading habits... can read everything of merit.

Some works will be forgotten because they really weren't all that good... or they were but period pieces. Some will be forgotten because they were never recognized by those who establish the "canon". Surely there are some Bulgarian or Slovenian works of real genius. They never made it into the "canon" because the canon is largely established by the dominant cultures. Partially, this is due to the fact that the excess wealth gives these cultures the free time and the resources to spend upon the arts. Partially, this is due to the fact that these cultures are often in contact with outside influences through trade and military presence... and the influx of outside influence keeps a culture forever fresh. Admittedly... there is also the reality that certain cultures (and certainly I am not speaking of what is fair) are largely ignored by the dominant cultures that establish the canon because of a lack of any desired resources as well as linguistic barriers.

Certainly there will be works that fall from the canon and others that will be added to it over the course of time. This is not possible, however, with the more central works as so many other works form a sort of chain or dialog (as T.S. Eliot spoke of it) of inter-connectivity. Homer, Dante, Goethe, Virgil, Shakespeare, the Bible, etc... have all inspired endless later writers of real merit... even those who do not even speak the native language of the author.

The average person is nowadays already in a minority position for just reading occasionally a work of light fiction, to say nothing of classics to whom the vast majority of the population is only exposed to as part of compulsory education.

I don't share your (or Peter's, for that matter) pessimism. Art has never been decided by the masses or the majority. Michelangelo and Giotto were not employed by the peasants. Their survival was not assured by the mass public but by the opinions of subsequent painters, art lovers, and art experts. Nor was the common reader ever anything but a minority. Of course in our modern egalitarian democratic societies we don't like to hear the idea that art is something of an elitist endeavor. But it always has been and it probably always will. Popularity among the larger population as a whole doesn't matter in the least. It was not the opinions of the masses that canonized Homer, Virgil, Dante, or even Shakespeare. Some artists of real merit have a large popular following during their lifetime. Others don't. Popularity means nothing one way or the other. We now live in an era when the "elitism" that defines what art is canonical is not solely reserved for those or wealth and status, but rather is one of a sort of elective affinity. One has the freedom to invest his or her time in the study and appreciation of art and music and literature... or not. They can be nothing more than passing forms of entertainment. The reality is that the 'elitist" group who decides what art lasts includes not merely the university professors and critics, as well as the artists of merit building upon the past... but it also includes people like many here... who sincerely love literature to the point that they have invested an excess of time and effort into the study and appreciation of it and who can argue Milton vs Shakespeare and Joyce vs Proust.

[JCamilo]

Yeah, some writers that were canonized were popular but that was not the reason why they became popular - it is neither can be seen as a pressure of secret societies that held the power of culture, The elits shift more fast than the time needed to build the canon.
I would point there is a difference from the previous ages, today the methods of productions and informations are owned by a minority, (the problem is not the masses - but what the best sellers producers think the masses will buy) and of course they have always been, but now they are focused on mass market, and this is damaging and what good art will have to overcome to impress.

[stlukesguild]

I think one of the biggest changes in the arts is the amount of money to be made off the larger population as a whole. Because of the ability to duplicate and mass produce many forms of art: music, film, books... and even, albeit in a far more limited manner, paintings and sculpture through photography, there is far more money to be made from the production of art which resonates with the masses and the largest possible audience, than there is in the production of art that is more difficult... challenging... and limited in the scale of the audience. When Beethoven or Handel or Haydn were composing the only audience that mattered was that comprised of mostly wealthy and educated classes. Music for the masses was what was produced by traveling minstrels or rank amateurs in their off hours in the pubs and taverns... but without the ability to reach a truly mass audience, there was far less money to be found here than in composing for the aristocracy. The same held true of literature until the invention of the movable type and the institution of public education and a broader degree of functional literacy among the general population. There is now far more money to be made from entertaining the masses than from literature that is more difficult and challenging. The sales figures for the most critically acclaimed poets, for example, are laughable in comparison to a vast industry such as Rowling or Steven King. It must surely be more and more difficult to sell a publisher upon taking on some experimental new writer. For what purpose? Charity? The visual arts have their own problems related to the educational system for art, and the influx of great wealth (and influence in the market) in the hands of persons quite ignorant of what is good or bad in art but a desire to appear cultured... and the unscrupulous dealers and "artists" ready to provide them with the product to suit their needs. Nevertheless... because painting and sculpture cannot truly be reproduced and as such hold a status as luxury items and cult objects... the opinions of the masses still hold almost no sway whatsoever in the field... blessedly.

[JCamilo]

The great problem is of course, those who control the production are not the artists (never truly was, art was always related to power, economic or political) and if the pressure for production for masses is too strong, that damages a bit the quality (one should speak, it is necessary to have both, quantity and quality) and bring up the discussion about democratic access, productions, etc. It is not new, the Romantic Movement had smilar take since they are in middle of the prose-poetry change and prose writers obviously developed a poetic prose to make up for the decline of poem (specailly narrative) production of the XIX century and we had great romance writers as good as poets. Something similar will happens obviously, someone will see what Joyce left and develop a new text, quality wise for the mass web production, etc. (or already happened). Often the death of Art is a just an exagerated rumor.

[Jozanny]

I dunno, this is something I've wept about with less grace than luke's observations in the poetry thread, and won't go into the whole thing again, but I am published, and my byline broke ranks in 2005 and hit about 200,000 readers, but only because I was lucky and able to merge a personal experience with the Jennifer Wilbanks story.

And it doesn't matter. Literary journals, by and large, are read by the students in the colleges that produce them, and by the contributors in them. It is rare indeed that the public picks up The South Carolina Review or its sister publications.

I don't know how this bodes for the canon of the future, but Rowling got incredibly lucky. How artistically worthy she is, I dunno. There is a touch of King Arthur fableism in Harry Potter. I don't think the franchise is mass market trash, and I am not sure what level of literary merit it rises to or doesn't, but I don't envy those who aspire to Joyce or Proust's level of artistic vision in the contemporary era.

When I was in college I was going to conquer the world. I would have been wiser to do like Chekov, and focus on a profession outside of the humanities. Now I am too old and it is too late--but setting out to be a writer of the literary genre in today's world is akin to loving the suicide pill in your vest pocket.

Maybe I have On The Beach on my mind, the Shute novel I've never read and the movie only vaguely recalled, but to ease myself out of petulance before I leave, luck has something to do with it, even in the case of Shakespeare's staying power.

luke once asked, I think in protest, "Are there no absolutes?"

The short answer is no. But we can come pretty close to it in the West by being grateful for the wildfire spread of Hellenism and the Renaissance, and then Modernism. These are the three forces which allow/have allowed for the canon's development.

I think we live in an era now where the nation-state is breaking down--of course, this can rapidly reverse course if technological regression occurs--but it is due to this erosion of national concept that things can very complicated very fast. Need I point out the controversy over Chinua Achebe's damnation of Heart of Darkness?

I, and most every other Europeanized intellectual think he's wrong, and I have little affinity for his, Achebe's work, in turn--but in the era of multi-culturalism, all it takes is a hammer, no?

[stlukesguild]

I don't think it is possible to guess what will or will not be the next big phenomena with the public. Surely the big publication firms and Hollywood film industries would love to be able to produce such on demand... but as Jozy suggests, there is a great deal of luck involved. Of course once the industry gets rolling, the push of the mass-marketing system definitely helps... but this alone can rarely produce a hit as numerous well-funded flops prove. Are Harry Potter or Dan Brown or (in my field) Thomas Kinkade without all merit? Probably not... there is something there that is resonating with the audience... but artistically there are endless others of equal and a good number of far greater artistic merit that for whatever reasons did not click with the audience on this level. There is an interesting book on books and reading entitled Casanova was a Book Lover by John Maxwell Hamilton that looks at the rather bleak picture for the working writer (average income, etc...) and then points out that with few exceptions a good many of our strongest writers have always had a day job... if they hadn't inherited a large sum of money : the Bronte sisters (governesses), Mathew Arnold (school inspector), William Burroughs (exterminator), John Bunyan (tinker), T.S. Eliot (bank clerk), Jules Verne (stock broker), Thomas Hardy (architect), John Keats (apothecary), Christopher Marlowe (spy), Fitzgerald, Sherwood Anderson (advertising men), Henry Miller (tailor), Kafka and Wallace Stevens (insurance), William carlos Williams, Arthur C. Doyle, Chekhov, Louise Celine (doctors), Sir Walter Scott (lawyer... who continued to practice in spite of his success), Whitman and Hemingway (journalism), William Faulkner (postmaster), Richard Sheridan, Goethe, Edward Gibbon (political positions), Nathaniel Hawthorne (customs), Herman Melville (various jobs... including customs and setting up pins in a bowling alley in Hawaii!). Wallace Stevens wrote, "A writer faces the point of honor that concerns him as a writer. He must apparently choose between starvation and that form of publishing (or being published) in which it is possible to make money. His problem is how to support himself while engaged in the most honorable capacity. There is only one answer. He must support himself in some other way." T.S. Eliot would concur, rejecting the romanticized ideal of the artist starving for his art: "I cannot accept one bedroom as being liberty in comparison with my present life." Eliot disliked his job at Lloyds Bank... but disliked poverty less. having done the starving artist stint myself in a cold-water flat in New York, I completely concur... and find I am far more productive in my present employment (where I can actually purchase the materials I need for my art) than I was then.

[Jozanny]

Well luke, my disability prevents me from returning to social work, and so I taught myself how to freelance--and freelancing is a wake-up call to elitism, but writing for money and posterity both have left me quite cynical, I am sorry to say.

Melville set up bowling pins in Hawaii? Where does this tidbit hail from?

[kelby_lake]

A book has to be noticed first- so if it's about a controversial topic or an unusual idea, people will remember it. It gets a rave review (hopefully) and then becomes a popular film.

[Jozanny]

A book has to be noticed first- so if it's about a controversial topic or an unusual idea, people will remember it. It gets a rave review (hopefully) and then becomes a popular film.

But this isn't a guarantee for its staying power kelby.

[kelby_lake]

Maybe- then it needs to follow all the points that make a book a classic.

A book can be an obscure classic

[JCamilo]

Overall, all classics are obscure. What is famous is their impact, not the book itself.

[JBI]

Overall, all classics are obscure. What is famous is their impact, not the book itself.

The letter that Columbus wrote to Queen Elizabeth of Spain, telling her that he found land, is far less read than even the most minor canonical authors.

[Etienne]

The letter that Columbus wrote to Queen Elizabeth of Spain, telling her that he found land, is far less read than even the most minor canonical authors.

How did he send that to her? :D

[Virgil]

How did he send that to her? :D

I'd like to see the mail box Columbus put it in. :D ;)

[Virgil]

After all, is it arbitrarily then, nothing more than word-of-mouth recommendation? Or how does canonization function? What do you think?


Perhaps it was word of mouth recommendation at one time prior to the modern university system. Today with published criticism and an academia of experts (and let's take that with a grain of salt, but they do commit their lives to understanding literature and that does mean something) canonization is somewhat institutionalized. Now that is not to say that works and authors do not vary in esteem over time. Writers and works are constantly being re-evaluated and upgraded or downgraded. Each generation brings their views to the works.

[JBI]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus%27s_Letter_on_the_First_Voyage

[Virgil]

Thanks JBI. That is good to know and keep in mind. We were only teasing you. ;) Now I wonder what the postage was. :D

[barbara0207]

Well said, Virgil. (Ed.: I mean your last post but one. :)) Where books are concerned that are part of the curriculum, this is certainly true. But what is it that makes these books attractive for readers so that they buy or borrow them or watch the film versions? What is it that Shakespeare, Goethe, Dostojevsky - to name just a few - have that people still read them voluntarily, unforced?

I think the answer lies in the way these authors deal with human nature, which has not changed that much over the centuries. When young Goethe discovered Shakespeare, he was enthused about the way the Bard showed human nature. In films, they even stick to Shakespeare's language, and even young people who find that language tiresome in class are fascinated watching Leonardo di Caprio courting his Juliet. The setting has changed to more modern times, but what Shakespeare has to say about human nature stays true.

[JCamilo]

I think it was always instituonalized, just think how much Virgil was "protected" by Dante and how Dante was by Bocaccio, how the status of Shakespeare have much to do with the critical reading of the late XVIII century. The problem is one, a book to really turn in canonical needs more than one institution, needs to survive the good and bad critics. Voltaire bashed both Dante and Shakespeare and was one of those walking Institutions, it was the capacity to survive those attacks that granted Shakespeare status. Just like Voltaire managed to survive the attacks of the romantic generations, etc.

[lawpark]

Great thread!

One observation is that classics are usually written a generation before or as a new institution gets formed - this might have been Randall Collin's insights in The Sociology of Philosophies. (highly recommended book btw)