In defence of the cannon [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

LitNetIsGreat

02-22-2009, 02:11 PM

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

02-22-2009, 02:24 PM

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

02-22-2009, 02:25 PM

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

02-22-2009, 03:23 PM

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. :lol:

JBI

02-22-2009, 03:49 PM

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

02-22-2009, 04:02 PM

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

02-22-2009, 04:30 PM

(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

02-22-2009, 04:32 PM

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. :thumbs_up

Hank Stamper

02-22-2009, 04:34 PM

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

02-22-2009, 04:50 PM

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. :thumbs_up

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

Bluenote

02-22-2009, 05:25 PM

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

02-22-2009, 06:05 PM

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

02-22-2009, 06:13 PM

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

02-22-2009, 06:41 PM

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

02-22-2009, 06:50 PM

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.

Virgil

02-22-2009, 06:52 PM

LitNetIsGreat

02-22-2009, 06:58 PM

Nice story Bluenote thanks for sharing that, I totally agree with your points and have expressed similar things about branching out myself, see the "starting literature" thread if you don't believe me.

Now Quark, I’m not going to play Plato ping pong like you did with the some other poor soul in the “what is literature?” sort of thread. At least I think it was you or maybe I am just being paranoid (if so then I apologise hugely) but I just hope you’re not trying to derail the thread down side streets picking up on finer points for the sake of it, if so I’m not going to play long.

What do you think is a good example of literary value and why?

I dislike this sort of question, but fair play I have asked for it in many ways, it's like the "what is literature?" question. My own take is that literature is naturally resistant to easy definition, it is art after all. There can be, nor should there be “check list” determining its value, what makes literature? Character, plot, etc? all of it and none, but a consensus of critics and academics most of whom would arrive at a similar conclusion separately regarding the quality of a text would go far. I would safely give Shakespeare the thumbs up to a good example of literary value and you will know why if you read Shakespeare.

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?

Plato ping pong? Of course the writer/artist of the text is of paramount importance, it is not for the artist to do anything but to express themselves in whatever form they choose. It is not the author who is putting value upon the text though it is the reader and critic. But I fear we are stepping down streets off the beaten track.

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.

Now I'm confused are you saying that enjoyment is the main judgement of value? Or are you thinking I am saying that?

JBI, I'm not talking about one definitive list, naturally there are going to be variations from individual to individual, I included Bloom as an example of a list only.

Yes people will clearly have fields of interest within literature, that is only natural, but you say that:

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

Does this mean that if you had to teach Ancient Greek literature you would not cover the likes of Homer, Sophocles, Euripides? Which of the following on Bloom's list is unworthy of study?

The Ancient Greeks

Homer - Iliad, Odyssey

Hesiod - Works and Days
Theogony

Archilochos, Sappho, Alkman
Pindar - Odes

Aeschylus - Oresteia, Seven Against Thebes, Prometheus Bound, Persians, Suppliant Women

Sophocles, Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonus, Antigone, Electra, Ajax, Women of Trachis, Philoctetes

Euripides, Cyclops, Heracles, Alcestis, Hecuba, Bacchae, Orestes, Andromache, Medea, Ion, Hippolytus, Helen, Iphigenia at Aulis

Aristophanes, The Birds, The Clouds, The Frogs, Lysistrata, The Knights, The Wasps, The Assemblywomen

Herodotus, The Histories

Thucydides,The Peloponnesian Wars

The Pre-Socratics (Heraclitus, Empedocles)
Plato, Dialogues

Aristotle, Poetics, Ethics

Like I said I am not talking about a single definitive list, there can never be one, but a general idea of texts that are worthy of further investigation. For example I am currently undertaking a Restoration and Eighteenth Century module, on there is the likes of The Monk touching upon the gothic without looking at this novel would seem strange surely, but alongside that we have a text by Eliza Parson's that the tutor has been able to rescue from obscurity and is included alongside this text in order to challenge the gothic canon. This is a good example of where I am in agreement of challenging the notion of the canon, but I can't understand simply rejecting the canon altogether just because it appears to the fashionable to do so. So when you say:

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 all for this, again when you say:

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.

Of course not but some knowledge of the gothic genre would be needed, if only Warpole and Lewis and a little criticism thrown in. Granted if your area is contemporary Canadian literature it would be unlikely you would need that knowledge but nevertheless to have it under your belt would also be helpful.

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.

Yes but I know more than one University tutor with a total dislike of Shakespeare, and on my literature degree the study of Shakespeare is not compulsory. I find that somewhat worrying. The canon maybe changing but do we want it to change that much?

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.

Again though I am not talking about Bloom as such, i just included that in case people wanted to see a typical example.

Hank:

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

Yes I would agree with all that.

Bluenote

02-22-2009, 07:03 PM

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

I am one of "those people" , now as I've stated it has it's place (obviously) from within the frame of academia. But I personally lament the tendency of some endorsing it to "literary snobbery" ( and no that's not aimed at you) and as has been pointed by others in this thread , it's corollary tendency to a highly Western emphasis.

And what's NOT included is in some measure as pertinent as what IS included.

B.

JBI

02-22-2009, 07:04 PM

My literature degree doesn't have compulsory Shakespeare studying either - the only Shakespeare I think I will have studied formally by the end will have been The Sonnets. That isn't worrying. If the student is worth anything to the study of English as a whole, he will go out and read Shakespeare on his own.

In my university there is no General Literature program. Most people take English. That means they won't be reading Cervantes or Dante anyway. If they are serious students however, they will go out and read them on their own, or take a language/culture course.

I just wrote an essay on Eliot's "The Dry Salvages". I don't study Sanskrit, but I went out and got a copy, and criticism on the Bhagavad Gita. Those who don't probably aren't serious enough to go far anyway.

What's actually studied in university courses isn't as important as what is studied in the university as a whole.

Quark

02-22-2009, 07:08 PM

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.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that readers only look at the classics--that would get tiring fast. Great literature, though, still seems important and worth study. It could be true that introductory students would be better served by less rigorous and more familiar works, but, ideally, that would lead into studying more difficult and rewarding texts anyway. Perhaps the canon shouldn't be forced on beginners, and it certainly shouldn't be the only thing studied, but I think you're right when you say that great literature "has it's place"--even if that place is pushed back in a school's curriculum.

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

Oh you know him too well.

The Greek plays are the greatest literary creations ever written. I'd sooner remove Shakespeare, who covers much of the same ground.

I take it you mean that the Greeks established the main genres in Western literature and some of the common plot lines. Is that really all that great literature is? It seems unlikely that the only reason squeaky-voiced adolescents are forced to recite King Lear or Romeo and Juliet is that those plays are retellings of common stories and conventions. If that were true, then you could pick almost any Renaissance playwright and have the same results. Genre is important, but there's more to Pindar and Keats than that they both wrote odes. Literary experience may be wider than you think. Perspective and ambiguity were categories hardly explored in ancient Greek writing--even though we consider them two of the most basic literary principles.

While novels, poems, and plays frequently do repeat certain basic conventions, I'm also aware that there's enough unique in even a single novel to require tens of books and articles to explain it.

That's the real reason the canon shifts. There's a lot of duplication of effort going on, and very few truly original ideas.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the canon shifts to make it easier for contemporary readers to absorb the content of the already established classics?

LitNetIsGreat

02-22-2009, 07:09 PM

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.

Yes, I am not trying to say I can give anything of literary value, come on Christ (though nor did I try) I am merely posting a topic on a forum with a tongue-in-cheek title - and even that is spelt wrong!

JCamilo

02-22-2009, 07:22 PM

Drkshadow03

02-22-2009, 07:27 PM

Sidney's work is more philosophical than aesthetic - it's a direct response to Plato's accusation of poets as liars.

I could be wrong, but I don't remember Plato necessarily saying poets were liars, that they were blatantly going out of their way to misrepresent the truth to the masses.

Rather I believe he accused poets of teaching the wrong values because like all people who aren't philosophers poets do not have access to the Forms and therefore lack the truth about the things in which they write about. Since they lack the truth about important issues such as justice, ethics, and virtue, which they claim to be dealing with or exploring in their works, they are misrepresenting them and circulating false knowledge about what is virtuous, or what is justice. It's not so much they are lying, but they themselves have no idea that they lack knowledge. The distinction is subtle, but I do think there is an important difference between the two. I

JBI

02-22-2009, 07:29 PM

The strange thing though, is on one hand he preaches aesthetics, and on another he put The Argonautica on there. As anyone tried to read that book? Talk about boredom!

JBI

02-22-2009, 07:34 PM

I could be wrong, but I don't remember Plato necessarily saying poets were liars, that they were blatantly going out of their way to misrepresent the truth to the masses.

Rather I believe he accused poets of teaching the wrong values because like all people who aren't philosophers poets do not have access to the Forms and therefore lack the truth about the things in which they write about. Since they lack the truth about important issues such as justice, ethics, and virtue, which they claim to be dealing with or exploring in their works, they are misrepresenting them and circulating false knowledge about what is virtuous, or what is justice. It's not so much they are lying, but they themselves have no idea that they lack knowledge. The distinction is subtle, but I do think there is an important difference between the two. I

From what I remember, it's something like this:

We wish to realize the perfect world. Poetry cannot get there, because it offers only a reflection of the perfection, and is therefore distorted. The use of metaphor is deceptive, as it requires a suspension of disbelief to be executed, and necessarily makes a false comparison. So when David was a Lion on the battlefield, one is distorting, because he wasn't actually a lion, but in order to try and capture it, we use a comparison, which is a lie. Plato thought this deceptive, as it offers a distortion of the real, rather than a look at the real itself.

Sidney justified this lying by essentially saying poetry leads to a projection of Eden, that which was lost, and though it does not offer the same truth as philosophy (in his case, probably more theology than philosophy), it offers us a glimpse back at what was lost with the fall, and both "teaches and delights" by this. Or something like that anyway - it's been, I confess, 3 years since I read either of the works.

JCamilo

02-22-2009, 07:42 PM

The strange thing though, is on one hand he preaches aesthetics, and on another he put The Argonautica on there. As anyone tried to read that book? Talk about boredom!

Sometimes he is odd, giving nods to the historical importance of the book, rather the universal quality... He placed some texts that are certainly more representative than astounishing...
Someone once suggested that Sappho could not be there, since nobody read anything complete that she wrote and it was basead more on the opinion of the later writers about her...
I just know, if one would study literature history thinking about the canon, he will end studying nothing.

Drkshadow03

02-22-2009, 08:06 PM

From what I remember, it's something like this:

We wish to realize the perfect world. Poetry cannot get there, because it offers only a reflection of the perfection, and is therefore distorted. The use of metaphor is deceptive, as it requires a suspension of disbelief to be executed, and necessarily makes a false comparison. So when David was a Lion on the battlefield, one is distorting, because he wasn't actually a lion, but in order to try and capture it, we use a comparison, which is a lie. Plato thought this deceptive, as it offers a distortion of the real, rather than a look at the real itself.

Sidney justified this lying by essentially saying poetry leads to a projection of Eden, that which was lost, and though it does not offer the same truth as philosophy (in his case, probably more theology than philosophy), it offers us a glimpse back at what was lost with the fall, and both "teaches and delights" by this. Or something like that anyway - it's been, I confess, 3 years since I read either of the works.

No, I would agree that Plato thinks poetry is manipulative for the reasons you stated, and takes advantage of that fact himself in his own work ironically enough. But since one conclusion he draws in his work is that "no man does wrong willingly" I still am not sure he is calling poets liars, which implies that they are acting in bad faith. He seems to be suggesting that they are acting from ignorance. They just don't know any better.

Just like we judge people by their actions, not just their words, we should also judge philosophical texts by how they express their points, not just what they are saying.

Plato clearly is willing to use Poetics if done by a philosopher who can see the truth of matters, hence why he continually offers myths at the end of his dialogues.

Bluenote

02-22-2009, 08:10 PM

I don't think anyone is suggesting that readers only look at the classics--that would get tiring fast. Great literature, though, still seems important and worth study. It could be true that introductory students would be better served by less rigorous and more familiar works, but, ideally, that would lead into studying more difficult and rewarding texts anyway. Perhaps the canon shouldn't be forced on beginners, and it certainly shouldn't be the only thing studied, but I think you're right when you say that great literature "has it's place"--even if that place is pushed back in a school's curriculum.

?

A clarification is in order I think , that wasn't aimed at any individual here , I have yet to see a "literary snob" present within this forum. But I've run into them countless times in the hallowed ivory halls of academia.

And speaking in the context of the present day , what with the decline of reading both for study and for pleasure at the elementary, middle and secondary school levels , I personally think that it's of high import to get students to read. I dislike the cliche , but it remains a solid truth , to wit: Reading is fundamental.

Without the ability to read and understand the written word , other disciplines and their curriculums will inevitably suffer. A student who lacks "reading skills" won't be able to understand advance scientific or mathematical theorem.

I'd like to throw something out there and see what folks here think. And this is a theorem I've advanced at other times and locales.

Would not the student and by extension the Canon itself be better served if it was a list of Authors , rather than a list of specific volumes?

I offer as a micro-example from Bloom's list Steinbeck , his body of work (obviously) is far more than just " The Grapes of Wrath" , there are other examples within Bloom's list , that I can cite if necessary.

And as I stated some authors that aren't included are pertinent to modern society , I offer as an example there , Kerouac , " On The Road" and " The Dharma Bums" were highly influential on their generation and subsequent ones.

B.

mortalterror

02-22-2009, 08:17 PM

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.

I'll admit that even I didn't get much out of The Golden ***. Much of what Lucian has to say was also said by Swift. Chaucer fills the place once occupied by Ovid. If they are truly minor writers then their corolary will be other minor writers, and the canon can do without them.

Out of curiosity, which writers did you have in mind? Hesiod? Catullus? Propertius? Tibullus? Seneca? Lucretius? Cicero? Statius? Archilochus? Callimachus? Horace? At what point would you draw the line? Do you keep Tacitus but throw out Livy? Does Plutarch warrant an amnesty? I don't care for his approach to biography, but his ideas are useful. You must be careful where you cut as a branchless tree has no context for itself. The inclusion of certain minor authors draws a contrast with the greater, and throws their differences into relief. Ezra Pound makes the early twentieth century make so much more sense than it does with Hemingway and Eliot alone.

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.

I don't know that that is entirely true. There have been a number of Western eras which were fascinated by Oriental art and literature, and in each wave there has been some new attempt to translate the foreign works into our local dialects. There was the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam translated by Edward FitzGerald in the nineteenth century. The Arabian Nights get translated into French in the early eighteenth. Goethe's Faust is influenced by his reading of Kalidasa's Shakuntala and the Ring of Recollection, and then he writes the West-Eastern Divan under the influence of Hafez. This lovely translation of the Shahnama http://www.archive.org/details/shahnama01firduoft get's published in 1905 and there's some new ones being done by Jerome Clinton as I write this. You have Mathew Arnold writing his own version of Sohrab and Rustam from it in the Victorian era. Hesse was heavily influenced by the east and writes Siddhartha. We received many of the Greek classics, during the middle ages, from our contacts in Turkey, and elsewhere in the Islamic world. The Upanishads and Ramayana are both widely available for anyone who has a mind to pick them up. We have Koran's in abundance, in every bookstore and library. You might say that the West has had a centuries long love affair with the East, which has lately grown tense. I dare say you will be harder pressed to find a copy of Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory than you would one of them.

I could offer a hypothesis as to why they are not included in our current canon. The Shahnama serves much the same function as The Divine Comedy or The Odyssey does in our own culture and it is not excluded out of unworthiness, but suffers from being redundant, superfluous, an embarrassment of riches if you will. It could be that no culture can hold too many treasures at a time, and so we edge out the Greeks to make way for Shakespeare. Like I said before, I think there is a duplication of effort. The universal is often interchangeable, and the regional is forgettable. Your point, or rather your restatement of Blooms point, seems to be that when faced with a limited amount of time one should only read the very best there is. But it does not take into account that there is a limited spectrum of human behavior and sometimes the best can be repetitious. If time is the deciding factor, then the best canon would be the smallest one that covers the most ground, and not the one with the best books.

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.

I don't know that aesthetics aren't biological to some degree. There does appear to be some variance around a constant, but not much has changed in fifty generations, as far as I can tell. Each human society has a lot in common with other human societies and they go about building up a culture much the same way over and over again. Plutarch had it right when he compared Alcibiades with Coriolanus, Demosthenes with Cicero, Alexander with Caesar. I've often thought that the Gracchi were nice stand ins for the Kennedy's, Bush Jr. was a Claudius, and Washington made a nice Diocletian. We go about repeating the patterns of our forefathers over and over. It doesn't matter whether you are Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Tamburlaine, Cyrus II, or Shaka Zulu. The principle is the same.

JBI

02-22-2009, 08:21 PM

No, I would agree that Plato thinks poetry is manipulative for the reasons you stated, and takes advantage of that fact himself in his own work ironically enough. But since one conclusion he draws in his work is that "no man does wrong willingly" I still am not sure he is calling poets liars, which implies that they are acting in bad faith. He seems to be suggesting that they are acting from ignorance. They just don't know any better.

Just like we judge people by their actions, not just their words, we should also judge philosophical texts by how they express their points, not just what they are saying.

Plato clearly is willing to use Poetics if done by a philosopher who can see the truth of matters, hence why he continually offers myths at the end of his dialogues.

I have to disagree. I think he argues that poetry is evil, because it is a lie, and therefore has no place in an ideal world. What that meant for Sidney, was that he needed to reconcile the role of poetry, with the role neo-plantonic philosophy, if both were to be esteemed as high forms.

Plato didn't, like you say, think poets bad people, he merely, I think, felt poetry bad for society. Sidney tried to argue the opposite, that poetry was good for society.

Bluenote

02-22-2009, 08:29 PM

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.

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.

I'm going to point out a factor here , I'm sure most are aware of it , but I'll do so anyway.

You make very good points within the above that highlight a set of problems inherent within the publishing industry itself.

If they published "works of merit" instead of "what sells" , perhaps we wouldn't be deluged with "bodice rippers" , endless poorly written vampire novels and the like. These too have their place on the pure entertainment level for some readers , but I'm of the opinion the four racks of bodice rippers in the local grocery and single rack of contemporary fiction could and perhaps should be reversed.

But then I guess it's just an unfortunate societal commentary on todays world and the basic fact that filthy lucre rules it.

I've often wanted to start my own publishing house , but startup costs are rather prohibitive , it would take a 2-6 million dollar web press , the associated composition (typesetting) equipment and associated ancillaries such as plate burners etc. just to get up and turning , and then you have the distribution and copyright factors to consider. Total outlay? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million or so at the bottom end to do any sort of volume , and that's before a finished sheet ever comes off the press.

B.

JBI

02-22-2009, 08:36 PM

mortalterror

02-22-2009, 08:38 PM

The strange thing though, is on one hand he preaches aesthetics, and on another he put The Argonautica on there. As anyone tried to read that book? Talk about boredom!

I read it. I was bored with it, but about two thirds of the way in I found the right way to read it and it was a lot better. It simply required attuning myself to an aesthetic I hadn't considered before. The same thing happened when I read Paradise Lost, The Divine Comedy, and The Republic. All of the passages with Medea are excellent. The early scenes between Jason and Medea likewise are wonderful, and are worthy of comparison to the balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet. There is an image that lingers in my mind several months later of moonlight reflecting off a puddle onto a wall that I thought Apollonius wrote quite skillfully. However, this is not The Odyssey, and I prefer his contemporary Callimachus who said in his Aetia:

nightingales are honey-pale
and small poems are sweet.
So evaporate, Green-Eyed Monsters,
or learn to judge poems by the critic's art
instead of by the parasang

The Argonautika is a little too long to give us something we got better from Homer. Lucan does something different in his Pharsalia. He sets up an anti epic in opposition to Virgil's Aeneid and thus is worth preserving for his uniqueness.

Drkshadow03

02-22-2009, 08:57 PM

I have to disagree. I think he argues that poetry is evil, because it is a lie, and therefore has no place in an ideal world. What that meant for Sidney, was that he needed to reconcile the role of poetry, with the role neo-plantonic philosophy, if both were to be esteemed as high forms.

Plato didn't, like you say, think poets bad people, he merely, I think, felt poetry bad for society. Sidney tried to argue the opposite, that poetry was good for society.

No, he argues poetry has no place in an "ideal world" partially for reasons of mimesis and partially for the reasons I stated earlier. Just double-checked on the Stanford Encyclopedia (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-rhetoric/#Int) since it's been some time since I last read The Republic. Plato is ambiguous about kicking out the poets; at times he says we should keep those who do poetry correctly with the right moral values, at other times, he says let's just kick them out and not have poets. Not to mention there are other dialogues, which deal with these issues and related issues that offer slightly different perspectives than The Republic. Plus we need to judge not only what Plato says, but what he does in his own work.

Quark

02-22-2009, 09:06 PM

Edited out

mortalterror

02-22-2009, 09:26 PM

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the canon shifts to make it easier for contemporary readers to absorb the content of the already established classics?

I'm saying that in every society literature plays a function, and works of art have certain well defined roles which they play in those cultures. I think you will find that in every civilization that becomes sufficiently advanced there is a collection of fables, a long poem, a comic tale, a great prose story. It's sort of the way that almost all religions have some sort of creation myth, a pantheon of gods, visions of the end times. Whether they be Zeus or Odin, Roland or Achilles, Rostam or Hercules, Ragnarok or Armageddon, there are certain overlapping similarities.

Greece, Rome, Italy, England, France, Germany, Russia, Other
Epic
The Odyssey, The Aenead, Jerusalem Delivered, Paradise Lost, The Franciad, ? , ?, The Lusiads
Short story anthologies
Aesops Fables, The Metamorphoses, The Decameron, Canterbury Tales, La Fontane's Fables, Grimm's Fairytales, Anderson's stories
Comic novel
?, Satyricon, Orlando Furioso, Catch-22, Gargantua and Pantagruel, ?, ?, Don Quixote
Comic play
Lysistrata, The Pot of Gold, Love For Three Oranges, The Importance of Being Ernest, Tartuffe, Leonce and Lena, The Inspector General,
Tragic play
Oedipus Rex, Thyestes, ?, Hamlet, Phaedra, Faust, ?, The Doll House, Fuente Ovejuna
Novel
?, ?, The Betrothed, Tom Jones, Madame Bovary, Sorrows of Young Werther, War and Peace, Dream of the Red Chamber, Tale of Genji,

Every society has a need for these ideas, these expressions, and given enough time will produce something like them either independently or in imitation of a neighboring civilization's works. When the canon shifted to include more Shakespeare and less Aeschylus it was because the Shakespeare was more available and easier to come by. He required more recent languages, or even no translation, but the substance of his message, the emotions and ideas embedded in his poems were of a similar quality and even ideology as his predecessors. Whenever two works of equal merit and substance are in competition for shelf space the one which is closer to hand will win out. There is a driving need in every society for each type of artwork and where there is a vacancy something will fill that gap. If a society does not have one of it's own ready made for the purpose then they will adopt another culture's art to fill the gap. A society is organic. It has needs, and the canon is the list of artworks that fulfill those needs.

There are several Shakespeares, and several Dantes, several Homers, and several Tolstoys. They are not as unique and individual, not so irreplaceable as all that. If Don Quixote disappeared we could replace it tomorrow with Catch-22. Or maybe you don't have a perfect fit and need two books to serve the turn. There is a duplication of effort, of emotions, of techniques, and nothing is inexpendable. If Shakespeare and the Greeks were gone, we would be able to patch something together out of Calderon, Racine, and Moliere.

JBI

02-22-2009, 09:31 PM

I have to disagree. I think artworks are far more idiosyncratic then that. I'm not so sure if I believe literature fills a gap, a need - I think it works in a different way - it defines the culture away from the previous ones.

promtbr

02-22-2009, 09:48 PM

The study of literature seems to be driven by an urge to understand language and expression, not the sublime or pretty.

Really. Maybe in the halls you inhabit...You are really ready to reduce the study of literature to that? hmm

A literary classic, then, probably wouldn't have to be a beautiful work of art. Instead, it would have verbal characteristics which would point to interesting discoveries about the way we represent the world and think to ourselves.

They need that highly suggestive mode of expression that great literature is made up of. And, since most novels, plays, myths, and poems aim for the sublime or the beautiful, it isn't inconceivable that those that use literary expression would be more successful at being sublime and beautiful. As I'm saying, though, that prettiness of novels, poems, and plays as aimed for by the author is only the situation for great literature--it isn't what great literature actually is.

I left out a lot in my very brief explanation of great literature, but I want to at least debunk the idea of aesthetics before I move on.

I am sorry, but for me, its the oposite of debunking , what would that be..bunking? bunked up?

You guys are obviously more learned, well read than I am, but I am not buyin' the pretty, beauty rhetoric in describing the valuation of Literature's aesthetic (or lack of)

IMHO culture will define its canon, not visa-versa.

mortalterror

02-22-2009, 09:49 PM

I think there is a great deal to be said about why certain expressions retain a certain credence as they are handed down through time. Why are some expressions/images copied and not others? Some are retained, reworked, imitated, and others fall by the wayside. Isn't that at the heart of what we mean when we say something is canonical? Isn't what is canonical what a Greek, a Roman, an Italian and an Englishman separated by thousands of years can agree upon? They choose these words because they mean something to each society, because we haven't yet found a better way of saying the same thing.

Hesiod's Theogony
As the bees in their sheltered nests feed the drones, those conspirators in badness, and while they busy themselves all day and every day till sundown making the white honeycomb, the drones stay inside in the sheltered cells and pile the toil of others into their own bellies, even so as a bane for mortal men has high-thundering Zeus created women, conspirators in causing difficulty.

Virgil's Aeneid
As exercise the bees in flow'ry plains,
When winter past, and summer scarce begun,
Invites them forth to labor in the sun;
Some lead their youth abroad, while some condense
Their liquid store, and some in cells dispense;
Some at the gate stand ready to receive
The golden burthen, and their friends relieve;
All with united force, combine to drive
The lazy drones from the laborious hive:
With envy stung, they view each other's deeds;
The fragrant work with diligence proceeds.

Dante's Paradise
Even as a swarm of bees, that sinks in flowers
One moment, and the next returns again
To where its labour is to sweetness turned,

Sank into the great flower, that is adorned
With leaves so many, and thence reascended
To where its love abideth evermore.

Their faces had they all of living flame,
And wings of gold, and all the rest so white
No snow unto that limit doth attain.

From bench to bench, into the flower descending,
They carried something of the peace and ardour
Which by the fanning of their flanks they won.

Shakespeare's Henry V
Therefore doth heaven divide
The state of man in divers functions,
Setting endeavour in continual motion,
To which is fixed, as an aim or butt,
Obedience; for so work the honey-bees,
Creatures that by a rule in nature teach
The act of order to a peopled kingdom.
They have a king and officers of sorts,
Where some, like magistrates, correct at home,
Others like merchants, venture trade abroad,
Others, like soldiers, armed in their stings,
Make boot upon the summer's velvet buds,
Which pillage they with merry march bring home
To the tent-royal of their emperor;
Who, busied in his majesty, surveys
The singing masons building roofs of gold,
The civil citizens kneading up the honey,
The poor mechanic porters crowding in
Their heavy burdens at his narrow gate,
The sad-eyed justice, with his surly hum,
Delivering o'er to executors pale
The lazy yawning drone. I this infer,
That many things, having full reference
To one consent, may work contrariously.
As many arrows, loosed several ways,
Come to one mark; as many ways meet in one town;
As many fresh streams meet in one salt sea;
As many lines close in the dial's centre;
So many a thousand actions, once afoot,
End in one purpose, and be all well borne
Without defeat.

promtbr

02-22-2009, 10:28 PM

Bluenote

02-23-2009, 12:57 AM

I don't think it costs 10mil to start up a press. There are many small presses that I'm sure do not have that much net worth - they can't possibly with the amount of publications they put through (some Canadian publishers put out as few as 8 or so books a year). Though, if I were American (are you American?) I wouldn't dream of starting one. Better to start a periodical, though those are likely to fail unless you get some Ezra Pound to publish in it.

You're in error. The lithographic trades are something I know inside and out from front to back , I worked my way through college as a pressman , and even after I began teaching usually worked a 2nd job as a Master pressman.

And I'm still a member of the Litho Craftsmens Guild.

I'm not talking about a " small press" limping along with substandard , obsolete equipment. I'm talking about a "publishing house". Which of course means web press and not sheet fed , check the price of a new Man-Roland or even a used Goss , the only sheet-feds that would come close in that market are the 40 inch Heidelbergs ( Speed master) and the equivalent size Akiyamas , the Komoris in that market size are junk. This of course adds an extra step since sigs won't come off folded for trim so it's best to go with a web. And while you could get an ancient Harris for just under a million to a million 5 , if it breaks ( and it WILL , it's a Harris) you're dead in the water until you can source parts , if the press isn't running you're losing money. So better to put out the initial for a Goss , Roland or something Japanese within the web market in the first place , we'll think low call it 3 m. , you're going to drop another 500 thousand on a decent large format programmable cutter , then when you consider imaging and composition equipment you'll like drop at the very least yet another 500 k by the time you're done , Platemaker? even if you go DTP with the new technology at some point you'll have to plate up so there's another 50-100 k , so at this juncture we're already close to 5 mil in and haven't even considered bindery equipment , plate developer , negative developer , stripping tables and pin-n-register systems , and all this is with only ONE press.

This is not something you do in your garage with a 10x15 MultiLith , Chief A.B.Dick or Hamada.

And webs kick the slats right out of sheetfed on any run over 20 k or so , the longer the press run the more advantageous a web press becomes.

And the "small press" in the U.S. is dieing on the vine , they can't hang with the bigboys and the offshore crowd on a sheetcost basis , even the newspapers are packing it in one by one over here. It's the death of an industry and a craft.

My last job in litho was master on a 6 color Speedmaster ( sheetfed) with a heatset unit , we did very , very high end litho , custom color , process or supertight register , the kind of market where the artist comes in and has you run 5000 repros of his painting and then signs a thousand of them frames'em and sells for big bucks.. even that picked up and went offshore.

Very , very sad. as I said the death of an industry , and as readers we see it because the litho quality on books has definitely detoriated.

Hhmmm , I ran long again , sorry about. The whole concept of a publishing house is a pipe dream anyway. I'll leave it to the "vanity press" folks , most of whom are making it by going offshore for the actual printing.

B.

Bluenote

02-23-2009, 01:09 AM

JCamilo

02-23-2009, 02:43 AM

Its interesting what you are presenting mortalterror. If I remember right, before I left off studying lit a long time ago, Jung was expressing the idea of an ever shifting cultural canon whose art contained the same array of archetypes. I doubt Jung is read much anymore, but if memory serves it was along the same lines as what you are saying.

Jung was wrong, he would say there is rain because we have umbrellas. Mortalterror posted a lineage (at least Hesiod-Virgil-Dante) is a clear influence line.
Plus, I would argue with him that neither said anything he posted but shakespeare. That was translation and the reason why they were preserved is the aesthetic impression who have more capacity to be remembered, kept and copied.

I have no doubt that if Don Quixote goes to oblvion, he would be replaced. As much I am sure that those replacing it would not be us. There is not many Shakespeares, Dantes, etc unless those individuals are now also a category. I still have to see the monkey typing hamlet.

LitNetIsGreat

02-23-2009, 05:33 AM

Bluenote:
I'd like to throw something out there and see what folks here think. And this is a theorem I've advanced at other times and locales.

Would not the student and by extension the Canon itself be better served if it was a list of Authors , rather than a list of specific volumes?

I offer as a micro-example from Bloom's list Steinbeck , his body of work (obviously) is far more than just " The Grapes of Wrath" , there are other examples within Bloom's list , that I can cite if necessary.

And as I stated some authors that aren't included are pertinent to modern society , I offer as an example there , Kerouac , " On The Road" and " The Dharma Bums" were highly influential on their generation and subsequent ones.

Maybe, but I don't see how that would change the idea of the canon all that much. Having just re-read Hardy's A Pair of Blue Eyes it is clearly inferior to his later work and I knew that, but I wanted to read it again anyway out of interest. However if someone had time to read only one or two Hardy novels, who knew nothing of Hardy, why not direct them towards Jess or Jude, what harm would that do?

On the Kerouac point I would agree and they would be in my version of the canon, for cultural importance if nothing else - though I also think there is some value and merit to On The Road and Dharma Bums as I have said before, I enjoy them very much at least.

Though overall for me it is not about Harold Bloom's Canon or anybody's canon really, my interest in it is there merely as a way to protect the best texts - yes there are bound to be many pointless arguments as to what constitutes "best" and "value" but I see the postmodernist fascination with the blend of high and low culture as a threat to the beauty of the literature most of us all love. Maybe I am misunderstanding the postmodern is many respects, but the "anything goes" attitude, "all books exist on the same level” sort of attitude doesn't sit with me at all, it just doesn't, neither does being mocked by academics when I suggest Shakespeare is above Rowling.

JBI

02-23-2009, 09:19 AM

The best texts aren't in danger from anything but other great texts. In English programs, Shakespeare still is the most studied author - he isn't going anywhere, and neither are those around him. There is no danger to "the canon", all the people saying so are merely reactionaries going against the prevailing tastes of our time.

They simply would dismiss the bulk of female writers from 1500 onwards, because they weren't respected in their own times, or up until the end of the 20th century. I personally don't care for them, but one has to acknowledge the tradition nonetheless.

Besides which, all these rants seem very American, and to a lesser extent, British anyway. I don't think the rest of the world has this sort of problem. I don't think Racine is going anywhere, or Zola, or Dante, or anyone else. And really, I think that has to do with the fact that multiculturalism effects their "traditions" of scholarships more, as English has become the international language, and generated voices of authors from everywhere, which challenge the traditional tastes of critics.

LitNetIsGreat

02-23-2009, 09:56 AM

Hank Stamper

02-23-2009, 10:39 AM

JCamilo

02-23-2009, 12:11 PM

But that is all about the objective of the study...
I would say the danger is reduced, more influential and prepared critics have attacked books of the "canon" (for example, Voltaire when alive could not make people stop to like Dante or Shakespeare, mocking them once or while, or Virginia Woolf didnt halt Joyce), it is not a momment or a twist of fashion that will destroy centuries of influence. It does not matter, Melville is now politically incorrect ? Ok, he wasnt that popular when alive, but Moby Dick still here...
The danger that I most fear with the anti-classics for the sake of going against tradition is the production of new texts, a rupture like this will obviously hinder the critical capacity, because a model is needed...

kelby_lake

02-23-2009, 01:33 PM

JBI

02-23-2009, 02:12 PM

I hope you are right, but I am still surprised that some of the great canonical texts are not studied enough in some modern degree programs. It seems the likes of Shakespeare and Milton are not classed as core texts anymore and it is easily possible to get a degree in literature in the UK without even looking at either. This is in many respects nothing much to do with the canon as such, it is down to individual university programmes, but still the same it feels wrong all the same and I can't help feeling that popular literature and postmodernist stuff is taking over in some respects.

Of course this does not stop the student from choosing modules that include writers such as these (as I have - I read 10 plays just in prep for the module I did three years ago) or from personal study, but I would personally make it compulsory in literature studies. I would dearly love to study more Greek and Latin texts and certainly Dante, but it will not happen, that is something I will clearly have to do on my own.

That's because people study English, and from there study American, or British texts, or Canadian, or Post-colonial texts. There isn't enough time to study everything ever written in English that is canonical in one undergraduate degree. If I had to study only Shakespeare and Milton, I wouldn't be able to study Spenser or Jane Austen at a high level, and I would miss out on those.

What people study is specific, what people read is general. One should be an all encompassing reader, but one really cannot study all the great books. Harold Bloom is probably the most well read person who criticizes literature today, but even he specialized, and had his training mostly in the Romantic tradition. He later expanded, and always, it seems, was a wide reader, but really, he couldn't possibly have studied everything when he was younger.

You say you want to put classic texts up there, in many universities that is a requirement anyway. In English in the University of Toronto, there are degree requirements.

for a Major
.5 courses in theory.
1 course in Canadian literature
1 in American or transnational literatures
2 in British literature to the 19th century
and 1 in literature since the 18th century.

That ensures that the student gets a range, of course, but you can't get closer than that. A Shakespeare play ends up almost always getting stuck in the curriculum, because virtually all the 1st year courses, which are also required, feature one, but that is it. If one likes to study Shakespeare, one will go and take a more advanced Shakespeare course. If one likes Milton, one will go on and take a course specifically in Milton. There is such a wide-range of literature in English, that everything cannot possibly be covered in 7 credits, let alone 20.

Drkshadow03

02-23-2009, 06:36 PM

I hope you are right, but I am still surprised that some of the great canonical texts are not studied enough in some modern degree programs. It seems the likes of Shakespeare and Milton are not classed as core texts anymore and it is easily possible to get a degree in literature in the UK without even looking at either. This is in many respects nothing much to do with the canon as such, it is down to individual university programmes, but still the same it feels wrong all the same and I can't help feeling that popular literature and postmodernist stuff is taking over in some respects.

Of course this does not stop the student from choosing modules that include writers such as these (as I have - I read 10 plays just in prep for the module I did three years ago) or from personal study, but I would personally make it compulsory in literature studies. I would dearly love to study more Greek and Latin texts and certainly Dante, but it will not happen, that is something I will clearly have to do on my own.

Literature programs are a mess! It's ridiculous how little you have to take, and how many major works you never cover. A major in America is typically 10-12 classes in your major subject (30 - 36 credits), plus Core classes in other curriculum (math, science, etc.). Let's look at my undergraduate program, shall we?

2 Years of Community College:

- Freshman Comp (all freshman)
- Introduction to Literature Honors (all freshman, but students in Honors Program take this version).
-Creative Writing 1 (short stories)
-Creative Writing 2 (Poetry)
-Shakespeare as Film Class
- Mythology

4 Year School after Transfering:

-Introduction to Literary Genres
- British Survey 1
- British Survey 2
- A Class on a Specific Author (Shakespeare: Comedies and Histories)
- A Class on a Specific Genre (American Poetry: 1850 to Present)
- A Course on a literary Period (Decadence)
- An English Elective (Book Clubs: Postmodern Works)

- Honors Thesis and Research (50 Page Paper on Martian Science Fiction).

- Lord of the Rings Honors Class: Politics of LOTR (counted as a Poli Sci class for me, but counted here because it was a literature class and could've been used for ENG credit).

Grad School required 10 courses total, at least 8 had to be Grad Level. You were allowed to take up to two upper-level undergrad courses for Grad credit, you could also substitute two grad level classes in another department as credits for a total of 6 creds:

- Intro to English Grad Studies 1.5 (required)
- Intro to English Grad Studies II 1.5 (required)
- Intro to Critical Theories (required)
- Upper Undergrad Course (Henry James and Edith Wharton)
- Upper undergrad Course (Jane Austen)
- 19th Century American Lit Grad (Diplomatic Relations Theme).
- 20th Century American Lit Grad (Spatial Landscapes: Postmodern Lit)
- Theory Course Elective (Foucault)
- Thesis/Portfolio Grad Requirement Course (Revise three papers you already wrote in other classes and defend them before a committee)
- Library Science Grad Class
- Library Science Grad Class

Again, if you do the math, and exclude the non-required theory course on Foucault, though it was certainly reading intensive, I only had to take four actual literature courses in Grad school. Surprisingly I still learned a lot in grad school because the courses were intense.

Nonetheless, a great deal of my literary knowledge, however, came from private study, which is a shame. I am not sure how much I could've changed Grad school or would want to, but I have some ideas on how I could've changed my undergraduate program for the better.

LitNetIsGreat

02-23-2009, 06:53 PM

Drkshadow03

02-23-2009, 07:41 PM

That makes interesting reading, though I have never been able to grapple with the American schooling system. What is Freshman Comp (all freshman) for instance? I take it that Community College is 16-18 and that other one is 18+? It's surely much simpler to understand in the UK with A-levels at College 16-18 and Degree study at University with a three or four year course!

Though of course the main thing is that so little is seemingly covered on higher education courses, there is something in what JBI said about not being able to cover much in such a time. I suppose the want is that further education should lead to a taste of lifelong learning, though often "the job" gets in the way, though only if an individual lets it I suppose?

Freshman comp is the basic class to teach you what is expected at college-level writing. You're supposed to take them your very first semester. Most universities in the U.S. require it. You cover citations, formatting, some grammar, and then you write papers, which usually consists of a research paper on a political topic of some sort, a biography paper telling about yourself, usually one paper on literature, maybe a letter, resume, maybe a creative work, etc.

High School is until your 18 in the U.S., unless you drop out early at 16. The college status has nothing to do with age; it has more to do with the type of student who goes there, and how the institution is funded. In the U.S. there are Private colleges, State Colleges, Vocational Schools, and Community Colleges.

- Community colleges are where the people who had low grades in high school tend to go, people who flunked out of their first 4 year college, or people who want to get a cheap deal on their first two years of education, which basically consists of generic Core courses in math, science, etc., anyway. They are funded in part by the county, hence the community part, and partially from student tuition, and sometimes from state and federal money. I think it comes down to how much percentage of each funds them. They are sort of a mix between a vocational school and a real college. There programs typically only last two years, and earn you an associates degree. I got an associates degree in liberal arts. So you need to transfer after to a 4 year university, or have completed an associates degree that can lead to an actual job of some sort.

- State Schools vary in quality. Some are up there with the Ivy Leagues in education, while others are average universities. They fall within a range. Most state universities are decent, however. The bulk of there funding I believe comes from the individual state. So NY State Schools get their money from New York taxes and tuition. However, they also get federal money and donations. Most of them probably do NOT get money from the local communites, hence one of the main differences from a community college. They usually offer reduced tution to in-state students, while charging higher rates to out-of-state students.

- Private universities are the closest to businesses in higher education. Naturally since the free market dictates tuition they often cost significantly more than state schools or community colleges. Most of their funding comes from private donors and Student Tuition. Although, I believe they also can receive federal money and possibly state money in certain cases. Most of the Ivy Leagues are Private universities, but again the quality can vary from institution to institution. They might offer in-state student reduced tuition, they might not. They are privately-owned and run. It is their choice.

I originally applied and got into a good state university (Stony Brook University), but then recieved a call over the summer after graduating high school from the local community college, which was my fallback college, that if I entered into the Honors program there they'd give me a full scholarship plus money for books. I didn't pay a cent, except for summer classes, on my first two years of college. Not even for my books. It was a choice between paying $10,000 for tuition to take Freshman Comp, Intro to English, and geometry or pay nothing to take those same classes.

This led to me graduating with a 3.9 average, which earned me another academic scholarship when I transfered to a private university. The scholarship paid for half of my tuition, which was much more expensive because it was a private university. If I entered into the Honors Program, I got an additional $2,000 off. So I did.

For Grad school (both English and Library Science) I went off to a State University. Alas, it was in a different state than where I grew up and am registered as a resident so I didn't get a tuition reduction since I am considered an out-of-state student.

So I have experienced all three types of universities. They all have very different feels to them. I like small Private Universities the best.

Drkshadow03

02-23-2009, 07:55 PM

The amount of mind-numbing info on half the posts of this thread - how on earth do you expect general readers to come in and read away about your scholarships, points average, names of schools, grad requirements - my god, f-uckin bullsh-it.

It wasn't meant to be narcassistic. I was only trying to reflect what American education is like for someone who seemed curious about it.

LitNetIsGreat

02-23-2009, 07:56 PM

The amount of mind-numbing info on half the posts of this thread - how on earth do you expect general readers to come in and read away about your scholarships, points average, names of schools, grad requirements - my god, f-uckin bullsh-it.

Well I was interested, you don't have to read if you don't want to.

joseph90ie

02-23-2009, 08:05 PM

.....

Drkshadow03

02-23-2009, 09:09 PM

I should add that my personal story was included to demonstrate the role economics play in higher level education in America and the way it influences decisions of what college to attend.

--------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, I spent a lot of time thinking about how we can get undergrad English to mean something. If I had the opportunity to reform American Lit education at the college level what would I do? I tried to imagine what I would change based off my experiences. I am going to start a new thread for anyone else who would like to share what they would change.

JBI

02-23-2009, 11:57 PM

Wow - I didn't realize how different the system down south is. Here, university even means something different (which I knew before, but didn't realize the extent). Universities offer degrees, whereas colleges offer diplomas. You go here to university to study something, whereas you go to college to become something, like a plumber, or dental hygienist.

Virtually all the universities are public universities, and receive funding from the government, with the exception of a few religious ones.

Also, we don't have an intense intro to writing styles and stuff here. You either sink or swim (though, first years are allowed to take a course in effective writing, which won't go on their transcript and is essentially a waste of money), which seems to get rid of most people who aren't serious, though virtually all universities have writing centres to help people, and English Second Language, or French Second Language centres.

Also, unless one is in an American studies program (which isn't a literature degree anyway), all English literature work (from the universities I have seen, the major ones anyway), generally seems to fall under a heading entitled English, which forces one to cover a wide range of material, as I stated above.

I think though, that there is a real difference in approach to the way literature is seen. Canadian academics, from my understanding of them, don't have that sense of traditional nationalism, that I think comes from Emerson, that American academics seem to have. The approach to the texts seems more similar to the Canadian approach to identity, and likewise, the canon these people carry in their heads, seems to reflect that.

There are, of course, American literature courses, as there are contemporary British ones, and I am yet to take one, so I cannot say for sure, but I think the approach is more nuanced, from the scholarship I have read, showing more of a post-structuralist historical side, than an "identity" side.

Of course, the Americans have literally thousands upon thousands of extra English students, that cannot possibly become academics, and that creates some sort of a need for polemics, to an extent.

Either way though, it seems only the "American" canon that is really in danger. I don't see Renaissance scholars stopping to read Shakespeare, or Spenser, or Milton, or even poets as academic (by that I mean almost totally restricted to exposure within academies, and not with the public) George Herbert either. Likewise the 18th century specialists still read what to me seems the most boring of all English literature, and also the most bourgeois-restricted form, yet they aren't going to stop reading Pope or Johnson anytime soon. There is no need to defend the classics from those periods, because they aren't being attacked.

Wordsworth was under heavier fire 80 years ago than he is today, and he remains still probably the most recognized poet amongst the public, even over Shakespeare in many cases. It's just the Americans who seem to have a problem holding onto their tradition.

If I were to wager a guess why that is, I would say that the American culture, as it was before, bankrupted itself after Vietnam. No longer could the vision of paradisaical America really be sustained. The American vision ultimately shattered, and the civil rights movement really shook the foundation itself (in a good way, but the repercussions on culture really had a nihilistic effect). This seems to have been felt throughout the 70s, leading to a rethinking of the American tradition as a whole. What the literary culture eventually turns into, is a nihilistic vision, as seen in the works of Pynchon, McCarthy, Delillo, and the more elegiac form found in Philip Roth. Put that together with a consumer culture, and what do you get?

England on the other hand, after the wars, I think went the opposite way of the States. They simply made a museum out of their culture, honoring all the "greats" of the past, and neglecting the present scene. You see that problem coming up again in again, notably in Larkin, whose major poems all seem to be about the emptiness of his culture. Just read An Arundel Tomb, Church Going, or better yet, MCMXIV to get what I'm saying. I would call it elegiac poetry, but I think Larkin doesn't really seem to care - he seems detached, rooted in the past, yet unable to really move forward.

The Canon itself however, is in no danger. It is the present of literature within these cultures, which are taking a beating, notably, I would argue, from conservative critics who refuse to allow the literature to break from the tradition significantly enough, to establish a new one, like most of the post-colonial writers are currently doing. Instead of going forward, it seems that the process has hit a standstill, where the identity of the past is not possible, and the future looks worse off. In order to move forward this, there are two solutions. Argue for a break, and focus on contemporary literature, mostly from post-modern (now, I should use post-post-modern, as post-modern seems to apply to the past generation, in my opinion) perspectives, or, the other way, to unearth old, differing perspectives of the old, focusing mainly on women's literature in England's case, or minority literature, such as African-American literature in the United States case, and to reassemble a tradition that makes more sense in the contemporary time out of that. I personally opt for the first, but I think the prevalent take is the second.

Here we never had this real problem, I think, though, our literature always seems to have followed the first scheme I mentioned above, that is, redefining itself in the present by focusing on contemporary viewpoints, and interpretations, rather than unearthing. Our literature has always been political, and our authors have, it would seem, always been disenfranchised voices. The 19th century tradition was dominated by female writers, the 20th century also by female writers, and for the most part, of minority immigrant voices.

Wilde woman

02-24-2009, 08:40 AM

I went to Berkeley...you can just imagine all the anti-canon rhetoric I've heard! :lol:

Literature programs are a mess! It's ridiculous how little you have to take, and how many major works you never cover. A major in America is typically 10-12 classes in your major subject (30 - 36 credits), plus Core classes in other curriculum (math, science, etc.).

Yes, I agree! It's even worse if you don't study English literature specifically. At least English degrees require a structured and somewhat broad range of classes - hitting all the four major literary periods. (I, for one, have never heard of an English major graduating without studying Shakesepare...it's a requirement at my university.) Talk about literary snobbery though; the undergrads and (some) professors in the English department are as arrogant as they come. Some professors shoot down any and all dissenting opinions in class, sometimes to the point of humiliating students.

But I studied comparative literature, which requires that we gain reading competency in at least one foreign language and read some works in the original language. Our curriculum, at least for undergrads, is so widely scattered (because they're often cross-listed with courses in the language departments) that we're lucky if we even end up reading a few canonical works in the course of earning our bachelor's. It all depends on what that particular professor decides he wants to teach. I was fairly lucky in getting one Shakespeare play, an Austen novel, a Joyce, a Faulkner, a smattering of the classics, and Dante (only because my minor language was Italian). Everything else was considered "world literature" or period-specific.

And because comp lit students all study different languages, we're on our own when it comes to studying in our language. Each semester, the courses from language departments have to be approved by the comp lit department for us to get credit in them and THEN we get to pick from the crop. It's like finding a needle in a haystack sometimes; I wanted to study Petrarch and Boccaccio...you wouldn't think it would be that hard to find courses in the Italian department, but nope. Not in the years I wanted them. So I was forced to take Dante instead (who I learned to love). It's even tougher luck for students who study less popular languages (aka NOT French)...I once met a poor girl who studied Korean...they RARELY get choices; if a course pops up in their language, they HAVE to take it to graduate.

I think part of the problem - at least for undergrads - is that we really only have two years to really do any sort of intensive study. The first two years at American universities are usually filled up with general ed requirements (or, at Cal, the stupid seven-course breadth http://ls-advise.berkeley.edu/requirements/lsreq.html#7breadth) OR fulfilling the lower div requirements for your major of choice. (For example, I spent my first two years taking Italian language courses.) That leaves only your last two years ("upper division") to really dive into your field. As you said, that's about 30-36 units worth (8-10 courses). If your requirements are as messed up as mine were, your courses are all over the place and you end up getting only different snapshots of any given literary period. It's hard to take away a coherent message when your study is so...well...incoherent.

Again, if you do the math, and exclude the non-required theory course on Foucault, though it was certainly reading intensive, I only had to take four actual literature courses in Grad school.

This was for an MA in English, right? I would hope a doctorate would require more study.

If I were to wager a guess why that is, I would say that the American culture, as it was before, bankrupted itself after Vietnam. No longer could the vision of paradisaical America really be sustained. The American vision ultimately shattered, and the civil rights movement really shook the foundation itself (in a good way, but the repercussions on culture really had a nihilistic effect). This seems to have been felt throughout the 70s, leading to a rethinking of the American tradition as a whole. What the literary culture eventually turns into, is a nihilistic vision, as seen in the works of Pynchon, McCarthy, Delillo, and the more elegiac form found in Philip Roth. Put that together with a consumer culture, and what do you get?

JBI - it's interesting to hear what you say about the American canon. I think Americans are in (and have been experiencing) an identity crisis for quite a few years now, especially in the face of an increasingly global economy. I don't follow Harold Bloom, nor am I familiar with his arguments, but I agree with you that the literary canon is in no danger of disappearing. Instead, because our identities are in flux, we're constantly redefining (or attempting to) what constitutes "true" American literature. And to do that, we've mostly reached back into the past to redefine who had relevant American voices; was it the feminists, African-Americans, or other racial minorities?

Being an American (and having studied at an American university which has a general American studies requirement -I'm not kidding), my view is skewed. I'd love to hear if other countries - say, Canada - has a similar identity crisis. Ultimately, I think a nation's literature is one way of defining its identity so when there are contradictory views on exactly what that identity constitutes, the canon itself becomes a site for controversy.

JCamilo

02-24-2009, 10:09 AM

It would be funny to notice that this conversation happened before. People are attacking the canon since ever. Voltaire was already mocking those who attacked the french canon (Racine, Moliere, Cornielie mostly) calling those critics as flies who land on horses'asses to lay eggs, but even son, the hourse would still be able to run. (Most of it is in the L'Ingénu, so anyone can go and read) and Coleridge was equally worried with the future because anyone could write and be read... And it seems that only the critics of those critics are good enough to survive...

promtbr

02-24-2009, 10:50 AM

Jung was wrong, he would say there is rain because we have umbrellas. Mortalterror posted a lineage (at least Hesiod-Virgil-Dante) is a clear influence line.

I stand corrected o'master of current correct contemporary (pulblished?) critical literary theory...

JBI

02-24-2009, 11:03 AM

Canada never really defined herself, so there has never been a crisis of identity - besides which, we have accepted a policy of "multiculturalism", which essentially means that anything goes, really, and that what makes Canadian culture Canadian is that it deals with Canada, as in geography, and idiosyncrasy, not "Canadian values" or any other such things.

Like I said, the literature of Canada was essentially founded by women writers, and then carried forward by immigrant, and minority writers, most of which happened to be lower to middle class. The redefining essentially came in the 80s, but what resulted was really literature dealing with the reshaping and recasting of history, such as Ondaatje's In a Skin of a Lion, which deals with the "left out" immigrant workers who built Toronto in the first half of the 20th century, or Joy Kogawa's Obasan, which deals with Japanese Canadian internment during WW2.

Lately the focus has gotten more intense, with people stabbing at the "myth" of multiculturalism, and trying to redefine that, by means of discussion on immigration reform, and education reform. French Canada, which is another matter, is constantly trying to define itself relative to English Canada.

Frye in 82 (I think that was the date) when he published "The Conclusion to the Literary History of Canada" remarked that whether than ask "who am I", like Americans, Canadians ask rather, "Where is here". The definition of identity then takes on a different point of view really. The Canadian tradition isn't as coherent a tradition as the American one, and the Canadian identity isn't as fixed as the American one, so in the past 30 years, it merely bends and changes without much thought, where as the American one cracked in half.

JCamilo

02-24-2009, 12:50 PM

I stand corrected o'master of current correct contemporary (pulblished?) critical literary theory...

Yes, because unless your argument is published in a book, it is not valid. I will rather stick to jungionism such as Campbell conclusion that a pre-existing arquetype explains the many primitives myths reggarding bulls and not because the creation of bulls was transmited together with the same stories all around the world... meh...

Bluenote

02-24-2009, 01:22 PM

Sorry, you're right, I was being a spoilsport.

I would put forth that what you objected to was indeed highly pertinent , this has evolved into more than just a discussion of Canon itself , discussion of the vagaries of various educational systems and how they are affected by an what effect they have on the Canon is highly apropos. If you wish to castigate someone then castigate *me* for my digression into the technical details of the lithographic and publishing industries. Though that was *somewhat* apropos to the topic when one considers market forces i.e. what sells gets printed. And to an ever increasing degree the market for the classics is driven by academia.

How many individual students obtain a copy of any given "classic" solely for the purpose of study for a specific course and subsequently never pick up said tome again? Quite a lot of them.

And this is inherently closely related to the decline of the pursuit of literature as a whole worldwide. Face it folks we are a minority here , we all LIKE to read and cogitate on literature , sadly that's not the case with the world at large in this modern day and age of instant information , highly developed broadcast venues etc.etc.

B.

Bluenote

02-24-2009, 01:28 PM

Yes, because unless your argument is published in a book, it is not valid. ...

I sincerely hope that the comment above was a bit of tongue in cheek sarcasm. Perhaps you could clarify that?

Because if it wasn't , it's a logical fallacy.

A given arguements *validity* does not live or die solely based upon the criteria of *publication*. This of course smacks of the stance of certain academics and scientifics who will dismiss anything that is not published within the context of a peer reviewed "study".

Such an attitude is of course self-limiting and dismisses a large amount of valid and significant information.

B.

kelby_lake

02-24-2009, 01:49 PM

It wasn't meant to be narcassistic. I was only trying to reflect what American education is like for someone who seemed curious about it.

I found it interesting, being English and about to choose universities.

Etienne

02-24-2009, 03:12 PM

I've tried once to look if there was lists like this but from the French perspective to compare the anglo or franco-centrisms, but I couldn't find any. I was at a mainstream bookshop the other day and found a section of such lists (in the literary essays section sigh) and found quite a few... but they were all translations from english lists.

JBI

02-24-2009, 04:07 PM

I sincerely hope that the comment above was a bit of tongue in cheek sarcasm. Perhaps you could clarify that?

Because if it wasn't , it's a logical fallacy.

A given arguements *validity* does not live or die solely based upon the criteria of *publication*. This of course smacks of the stance of certain academics and scientifics who will dismiss anything that is not published within the context of a peer reviewed "study".

Such an attitude is of course self-limiting and dismisses a large amount of valid and significant information.

B.

What Camilo, I think, was saying was, though he is not a published critic, he still has valid opinions.

The Comedian

02-24-2009, 04:17 PM

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.
.

I hope you don't mind if I directly address one of your arguments. I agree with much of what you say about the canon. But I disagree with you a bit here. I think the statement that the canon is what it is because academics have made it so. . .is mostly, if not entirely true. You might want to add a few literary practitioners in the ranks of the academics. But these are the people responsible for the canon.

This reason explains why the canon changes too -- many years ago, here in America at least, the canon consisted mostly of white men. But no so much any more -- Toni Morrison, Richard Wright, Silko, and many others now have canonical texts to their credit. Why? Because the tastes and values of the academy changed.

In fact, I'd wager 10 tasty chocolate-sprinkled droughts if, say a borderline "great" novel such as Lonesome Dove, were to become part of the standard curriculum in colleges and universities, it would not take long for Lonesome Dove to be acknowledged as a true "classic" in the canonical sense, especially by the generation that grew up with that curriculum.

Another example: My grandmother had to memorize complete poems by Longfellow and Whittier, but had hardly heard of Whitman. Ask her what the canonical poets of early American literature are and she's tell you these two are at the top of the list. Why? Because they were when she went to college. :)

JCamilo

02-24-2009, 05:40 PM

What Camilo, I think, was saying was, though he is not a published critic, he still has valid opinions.

Yes, exactly.
Bluenote, just check the post which I quoted and replied, you may understand it better.

LitNetIsGreat

02-24-2009, 05:48 PM

I hope you don't mind if I directly address one of your arguments. I agree with much of what you say about the canon. But I disagree with you a bit here. I think the statement that the canon is what it is because academics have made it so. . .is mostly, if not entirely true. You might want to add a few literary practitioners in the ranks of the academics. But these are the people responsible for the canon.

This reason explains why the canon changes too -- many years ago, here in America at least, the canon consisted mostly of white men. But no so much any more -- Toni Morrison, Richard Wright, Silko, and many others now have canonical texts to their credit. Why? Because the tastes and values of the academy changed.

In fact, I'd wager 10 tasty chocolate-sprinkled droughts if, say a borderline "great" novel such as Lonesome Dove, were to become part of the standard curriculum in colleges and universities, it would not take long for Lonesome Dove to be acknowledged as a true "classic" in the canonical sense, especially by the generation that grew up with that curriculum.

Another example: My grandmother had to memorize complete poems by Longfellow and Whittier, but had hardly heard of Whitman. Ask her what the canonical poets of early American literature are and she's tell you these two are at the top of the list. Why? Because they were when she went to college. :)

No, I absolutely don't mind you addressing my arguments, that is what they are there for. I think it is only natural that things are going to vary from institution to institution and from tutor to tutor from what is taught and what isn't. However (there is always an however) things are also going to change a little over time, but that is not my main argument with this point. My main argument is that some people try to use this argument as a way to try to debunk the value of well established texts, "oh, that is only read because some old Oxford don says so." Whereas this may be true in a small way, it doesn't alter the greatness of the words on the page. I'm far from defending snobbery but I wouldn't attack or try to de-value the text in order to attack the don. Most texts that are part of the established canon (whatever that is exactly) because they deserve to be there by merit and are not just there for the sake of it.

Your grandmother sounds cool by the way, I would love to have a grandmother who had studied English. No one in my entire family has even walked passed a university, let alone attend one, for all my moaning (and you don't know the half of it) I'm lucky I suppose.

The Comedian

02-24-2009, 09:18 PM

No, I absolutely don't mind you addressing my arguments, that is what they are there for. I think it is only natural that things are going to vary from institution to institution and from tutor to tutor from what is taught and what isn't. However (there is always an however) things are also going to change a little over time, but that is not my main argument with this point. My main argument is that some people try to use this argument as a way to try to debunk the value of well established texts, "oh, that is only read because some old Oxford don says so." Whereas this may be true in a small way, it doesn't alter the greatness of the words on the page. I'm far from defending snobbery but I wouldn't attack or try to de-value the text in order to attack the don. Most texts that are part of the established canon (whatever that is exactly) because they deserve to be there by merit and are not just there for the sake of it.

I agree with you on most of this Neely. But I do think that literary "value" is more than just the best words in the best order: canons are selected in part because they represent the desired cultural/ideological values academic culture. When I attended the American university system in the mid/late 1990s there were many new and old texts that were were on the fast track to the canon because they were written largely by under-represented groups: Hurston's Their Eyes Were Watching God comes to mind. Even with a literary focus in my years prior to college I had never even heard of this author, yet by the time I was getting my master's degree this work was a mainstay in undergraduate curriculum.

Is Hurston's work "great"? It's good. But it was a cultural gold mine for the academic culture: Hurston was an under appreciated minority writer who was recently "rediscovered" by the academy. And if there was one thing English departments were interested in in the mid 1990s, it was rediscovering forgotten minority writers. Because her text fit this hot spot of ideological value, her work is now canonized.

Again, her her book is really good. But there are many other books of equal "best words in the best order" value out there. Her work is in the American canon because it and the book's "discovery" story represents values of the keepers of the American canon. So while iconic writers and texts (Shakespeare, Faulkner, Wordsworth, Wolfe) will probably never be replaced, the truth of the matter is that many will be regardless of their inherent "literary" worth.

In England, things may be different -- I'm speaking from an unfortunately isolated American perspective here.

So, in sum. . .I strongly believe that canon is dominated by the whim, wisdom, and insecurities of the academe. This, however, is a good thing, as I'd much rather have it subject to the academy than the supermarket best seller list or any other element of mainstream American (or English) culture.

:)

JCamilo

02-24-2009, 09:25 PM

I think some are indeed what best represent the academic vallues, but those vallues are usually build by those canons. Baudelaire had nothing with the academic vallues until he was added there- as result of his own quality and the artistics changes he (and other artists of his time) caused. Machado de Assis basically build the academy here... it is cyclical, if the academy does not change with time, we would still be held by classical vallues and only Virgil, Horace, Cicero, Ovid would be considered as "canonical"...

Bluenote

02-25-2009, 02:23 AM

What Camilo, I think, was saying was, though he is not a published critic, he still has valid opinions.

And with that I would agree , which is why I asked for clarification. I have always felt that most anyone's opinion , if it's formed after careful consideration , is valid. My opinion may differ from anothers , but I'm not about to dismiss theirs out of hand.

B.

Bluenote

02-25-2009, 02:27 AM

Yes, exactly.
Bluenote, just check the post which I quoted and replied, you may understand it better.

I did , and it was clarified , we rather share same opinion.

Bluenote

02-25-2009, 02:54 AM

We seem to have come back in a minor way to what's *not* included , as a for instance , I would argue that Thomas Wolfe should be included , along with of course James Baldwin , these are but two.

And Joyce Carol Oates rating only a single mention( Them)?

So many highly significant writers have been left out of the canon so as to form a canon unto themselves.

B.

JCamilo

02-25-2009, 10:29 AM

But that is because it is a list done by one man, with one limited (as much one man may know) knowledge. The ideal, perfect list of the canon is impossible. We would know that every specialist (which may include us) to assemble their lists, they would be put together using some method that I have no idea which is, and in the momment the list is done, it will be flawed. (Much like Borges's babel biblioteca, the books always changing).
Something quite simple, at the momment a important artist have an impact, his influences are also going to change their place in the canon, because they are now more important than before. A bit like Milton, which importance was increased by the romantic generation or how the 1001 Nights entered in the canon because the 18 century and Europe...
There was an argument in another thread about the importance of portuguese/brazilian literature. Well, if in 100,200 years, Brazil became a cultural potence, the portuguese literature will have more importance and the writers that are more relevant to us, but less to the world, will have more importance and they will get a spotlight in the canon: "Oh, so that guy was not just some regional wonder, he is the main influence of this now incridible famous guy...", etc. Like History, which the canon represents... that thing about the river...
I think to accept Bloom list, you have to read his book as scientific fiction and apply suspension of disbelief...