Towards a world canon?

[mal4mac]

Harold Bloom has been mentioned in several recent threads and one thing that has become apparent is his is limited appreciation of non-western cultures. Here's some quotes from a good article that takes him up on this:

"The Western Canon" Leslie Schenk; World Literature Today, Vol. 70, 1996

"Bloom is quite right not to include one single Japanese or Chinese anywhere in our Canon, but, I wish to ask, does that make our Canon right? I think it makes our Canon appallingly wrong. In short, what Bloom's book leaves me panting for, craving for, is a Worldwide Canon."

"From here on in we no longer can even so much as comment on Bloom, for he did his job only too well. But the fact remains we in the West are inexcusably ignorant of the literatures that have been produced elsewhere."

"Of course, this attitude is symptomatic of the West in more ways than one. We generally think that only what has been assimilated into Western culture can matter. If other things mattered, it is a basic assumption of ours, they would long since have been assimilated into our culture. Well, we are wrong, dead wrong."

"Compare our Iliad and Odyssey epics ... untaught in our schools because willfully banished from our curricula, and then consider the entirely comparable Ramayana epic, still alive and breathing in .. Southeast Asia ... and we Westerners know nothing whatever about it, nothing, which is scandalous, disgraceful..."

"In present-day mainland China, political disasters have marred what would otherwise be a similar awareness of that megacountry's great classics, but those classics are immortal nonetheless and will inevitably reenter the national consciousness. But if communist fiends have outlawed great littérateurs of genius such as Mencius, is that any excuse for our doing likewise?"

"Mencius (371?-288? B.C.) in particular is one of the greatest thinkers and writers of all time, on a par with Plato, and I consider it one of the privileges of my life that, through my knowledge of Japanese kanbun, I have been able to read him in the original."

"But in my meanderings through some forty countries of the globe, partly on behalf of the United Nations but mostly by my taking more side jaunts on my own than I could really afford, the country that widened my outlook the most, without question, was Japan."

"Now, it is perfectly accurate to report that the great Genji Monogatari (Eng. The Tale of Genji) does not yet form part of our Canon, but it is absolutely unarguable that it should. Alas, translation problems arise. Arthur Waley's version captures the poetic fragrance with scarcely any attempt at accuracy, so that whole sections of his attempt are imagined synoptic equivalents of certain passages; and Edward Seidensticker's more contemporary version, while accurate as can be, has tenth-century Japanese nobility speaking as flat an idiom as American hillbillies of the 1930s"

"two other earthshaking landmarks in classical Japanese literature were also written by ladies: The Pillow Book by Sei Shōnagon, and Sarashina diary As I Crossed a Bridge of Dreams, both beautifully translated by Ivan Morris and therefore highly readable."

"Harold Bloom is about as well-educated a Westerner as can be, but he seems not to know beans about non-Western literature. What on earth is wrong with us that we be so blinkered, and what can be done about it?"
---------
A start, surely, has to be the latest edition of Fadiman? At least it gives an introduction to some of these world classics to the general reader.

[Morden]

I definitely agree with reading more broadly than Western works, but I wouldn't be so hard on Bloom, especially when his Western Canon is after all limited to Western works. I wouldn't call it lazinees or narrow-mindedness so quickly. (You didn't, but I paraphrase) There is only so much reading time available.
That said, I agree wholeheartedly with reading The Tale of Genji, and The Pillow Book, and let me add The Gilgamesh Epic from the mists of time, three of my favorites. And Basho and Homer and Beowulf and . . . and . . .

I would not at all mind seeing a listing of the comparably great and enduring works from all countries (in English of course, my failing). I imagine it might be a long list, but it would be very valuable to have anyway.

For the moment (long moment!) I am trying to read works by noted American authors. A world list could be the next thing to entice me. Please start it.

Oh, and The Bible!

Cheers

[mal4mac]

Please start it.Cheers

Gilgamesh - Stephen Mitchell translation
Bible - "Testament" Philip Law's abridgement

[stlukesguild]

Check an earlier thread here:

http://174.133.97.227/forums/showthread.php?t=37176&highlight=Canon

[JBI]

It doesn't matter - people will agree, then realize how long the classic Chinese novels, and Sanskrit Epics are, and say, well, I'll put it off for retirement. I think Steven Owen's Chinese literature anthology is perhaps a good start - it consciously tries to assemble a sort of order and sense to a notion of tradition, but beyond that, an 80 dollar textbook won't really see the light of day outside of specialist classrooms, and the rest of the stuff? It seems the bulk of translators are all obsessed with one schtik or another - so you get your Buddhist obsessed translator, or your Taoist obsessed translator, and each one manipulates the text more than the other - it is actually kind of rare that you come across a culturally obsessed translator, who begins to translate things outside of some grand scheme. And seriously, I think the first thing that needs remedying is the annoying romanization systems. There is an almost perfect Latinization of Chinese into English (almost perfect if you know how to pronounce it, which takes about 20 minutes to learn) yet people still are using the nonsensical Wade-Gilles romanization which makes Beijing Peking, Li Bai/Bo to Li Po, and Dao De Jing into Tao Te Ching.


Lets be honest though - a canon is more than three texts, and Gilgamesh isn't really part of any Canon. And, after some thought, I would think that, if anything, the concept of the Western Canon has crumbled significantly in American (and perhaps to an extent Canadian academia, though all the reputable programs here require a study of pre-1800 literature from England) education in the first place, with no emphasis on literature outside of the country - I would wager, with the rise of the novel as a legitimate form, that the culture of certain countries merely folded onto itself - China, for instance, is mostly rooted in itself (there is a great deal of borrowing however, especially from English do to an exchange of cinema, and a cultural hegemony when it comes to novels) and I think Japan is pretty rooted in itself. Europeans seem a little bit more varied, and seem to read a little bit from their neighbors (a little bit) and I think Germans seem to read at a more continental level, but in a sense, outside of the academy, not much is really happening.

But who knows - I would describe the Ontario high school text books of being worldly, given that they have as much from China and Japan as they do from anywhere else. But how far does that stretch - I can't see, for instance, many people reading foreign classics, simply because a) they aren't advertised, and b) they aren't widely available (unless you are willing to buy a 50$ hardback volume of perhaps 1/5 of a classic novel). It seems the library is the only place to get the stuff, and the library in a sense has become something of a graveyard, with only the really serious getting what they want from it anyway.

But who knows - there are international readers out there - I try to be one, at least (particularly of Poetry, because poetry works better than novels for me). But even so - something like Tasso has become a sort of "exotic" archaic text, despite being one of the most read texts in Europe up until the turn of the century. I think most people's sense of the other is rooted in writers working from the US and Europe who are from the place, rather than original works being translated. So someone could perhaps read Jung Chang and think they have a sort of understanding of China, or read Hosseini's works and think they understand Afghanistan (I think if you are from that sort of background, they automatically sign you for a book deal in the States - Genocide survivor, Revolutionary - pretty much anything that ended up on the wrong side of a conflict) But I don't see anyone going out and translating the original works. How much can we really know about the traditions and cultures of outside countries?


For instance, I think I am better off coming from a multicultural city, but the truth is, most people in the States for instance know nothing about Canada. They perhaps know more about Mexico, but even then - how much? Hell, as a Canadian, what do I know about Mexico?

The actual establishment of a World Canon though, will definitely be delayed in some areas, and sped up in others. For instance, I cannot see much of a spread of influence hitting the States in the next 10-15 years, whereas, I can see a strong cultural interaction between China and Canada happening (they want our oil, after all, and Americans can no longer afford it) - Japanese culture has somehow leaked into many places - I know in China in particular, there are a lot of people really interested in it, as well as here to an extent (the sort of Anime culture for some reason seems to have taken a hold, I have no clue why that is though). But even then - how much of that is going to effect the exchange of literature? There probably will just be a few scholarly translations made by people in the ivory tower, for students seeking to be in the ivory tower, and that will be the end of it. Mass-produced publications of classics need to come with the approval of a decent sized audience - Penguin isn't going to put out classics, especially of longer works, unless people start to buy them. Since the late 90s they have been doing a better job, but even so, they are perhaps the ones with the greatest potential to create a world Canon, but, alas, they don't.

The only real poetry and things we can get from non-English countries are either by long dead, yet nobel-prize winning poets, or are grouped in these tedious anthologies which give you a taste, but not enough to appreciate fully.

[mortalterror]

What about Africa and the Middle East, JBI? Is Canada ahead of the curve there too?

[JBI]

What about Africa and the Middle East, JBI? Is Canada ahead of the curve there too?

Doubt it - Columbia University seems to put out quite a bit from there - as for Africa though, one would notice that a great deal of stuff coming out of there is written in European languages, which kind of bypasses part of the problem - especially English, which means Achebe can come here directly, though, as for Native languages, I find my knowledge to be quite lacking - as for the Middle East, there is an influx of translation, especially poetry coming from there. But then again, we generally see another focalization again - it seems easier, for instance, to get Arab feminist poets than it does just to get Arab poets - I don't know why - but who can say, I think Darwish and Adunis have pretty much been absorbed already - Bloom even put them on his Canon, if I remember correctly - but yeah, that doesn't really account for much - I would like a great deal of classic poetry coming through here, but it won't for a while, I suspect.

Canada isn't on the top, in the sense you are thinking, it merely has to do with a sizable part of the population being from multicultural backgrounds. So there are many, many traditions working at once here, and many people reading books in other languages, and, as I mentioned, the Ontario school board, specifically the Toronto School board, tries to cater to this multiculturalism (As well as support a government agenda of multiculturalism) by bringing in texts from everywhere into the curriculum (especially poetry and essays).

The only real Academic press able to compete in the translation and foreign studies departments with American institutions I would argue is probably University of Toronto - we have smaller presses bringing in works from elsewhere, but when it comes to serious struff, U of T is the only one sizable enough to compete - and even then, well, U of T essentially puts out all of the Canadian classics already (New Canadian Library, essentially the only real publisher of Canadian classics, is owned and operated by U of T) and the East Asian studies department here cannot compete with Yale's top notch one, and the Middle Eastern studies department isn't a patch on Columbia's - and, in addition, these are public universities, not private institutions - there is government funding to also consider.

[Paulclem]

the sort of Anime culture for some reason seems to have taken a hold, I have no clue why that is though) - JBI

I think that video games have really pushed Japanes culture here in the UK. Pokemon and the Final Fantasy series. Adverts for University coures in Japanese now refer to Anime and Manga as potential interests for students.

It goes back further than that though with TV series The Water Margin.

There is also an interest in Chinese culture - Monkey - the Chinese series has recently been produced as a play in London.

[Morden]

I can imagine discussion forums more broadly devoted than just Western, if one cared to do a bit of googling.

[Paulclem]

"Compare our Iliad and Odyssey epics ... untaught in our schools because willfully banished from our curricula, and then consider the entirely comparable Ramayana epic, still alive and breathing in .. Southeast Asia ... and we Westerners know nothing whatever about it, nothing, which is scandalous, disgraceful..." - Mad4mac

The Ramayana was serialised on TV in recent years in the UK. There is much more awareness in the UK of Asian work due to th influence of Asians now living here. The Diwali story is routinely told in schools to coincide with Diwali celebrations. I think more can be done, but it is graduall filtering in.

The influence of Buddhism and Hinduism is bringing a greater awareness of Asian texts too, such as the Bhagavad Gits and the 100,000 Songs of Milarepa. It's a slow process, but there is a rising awareness.

[JBI]

"Compare our Iliad and Odyssey epics ... untaught in our schools because willfully banished from our curricula, and then consider the entirely comparable Ramayana epic, still alive and breathing in .. Southeast Asia ... and we Westerners know nothing whatever about it, nothing, which is scandalous, disgraceful..." - Mad4mac

The Ramayana was serialised on TV in recent years in the UK. There is much more awareness in the UK of Asian work due to th influence of Asians now living here. The Diwali story is routinely told in schools to coincide with Diwali celebrations. I think more can be done, but it is graduall filtering in.

The influence of Buddhism and Hinduism is bringing a greater awareness of Asian texts too, such as the Bhagavad Gits and the 100,000 Songs of Milarepa. It's a slow process, but there is a rising awareness.

But that sort of cuts at the point though doesn't it - they are brought in through focalizations, so you get "Buddhist poetry", or whatever, as a sort of Orientalized variation on the real thing - it's a sort of misconstruction that has been occurring for a while - Pound did it, and the Beats picked up on it too, this sort of fascination with this sort of fascination with the East - You just get heavily modified, reduced reconstructions taken out of context, and appropriated.

Buddhism has, like Kabbalah, been reduced to this sort of celebrity sort of "new age" reconstruction - Buddhism transfers better, as it is more accepting, whereas Kabbalah is highly restrictive in the traditional sense (one needs, technically to be a well learned scholar in Hebrew and Rabbinic texts, over the age of 40, and male), but a sort of misconstruction takes place anyway.

I think perhaps T. V. is a decent step, but even so, how much better could a North American television serial be than a CCTV one (and they already have a full book Journey to the West) - or better yet, merely a translation of the text. Perhaps these are starts, but if you think about it, if people learn the Iliad from watching Troy, what does that say about the tradition? I think it's not too big a stretch to suggest such a connection.

[Paulclem]

But that sort of cuts at the point though doesn't it - they are brought in through focalizations, so you get "Buddhist poetry", or whatever, as a sort of Orientalized variation on the real thing - it's a sort of misconstruction that has been occurring for a while - Pound did it, and the Beats picked up on it too, this sort of fascination with this sort of fascination with the East - You just get heavily modified, reduced reconstructions taken out of context, and appropriated. - JBI

I think that's true more of the past than now. Whilst Buddhism is still quie a small religion in terms of numbers in the West, the influence of H.H. The Dalai Lama has brought a more mainstream awareness, and a willingness to look at Buddhist texts translated by Buddhists with an understanding of the core meanings. There are more availble now - particularly through the internet.

Buddhism has, like Kabbalah, been reduced to this sort of celebrity sort of "new age" reconstruction - Buddhism transfers better, as it is more accepting, whereas Kabbalah is highly restrictive in the traditional sense (one needs, technically to be a well learned scholar in Hebrew and Rabbinic texts, over the age of 40, and male), but a sort of misconstruction takes place anyway.

Following on from my first point - I also think this was true but more in the past than now. Certainly a lot of misconstruction has taken place - particularly concerning Zen Buddhism, which is much more formal and ritualised that it appears if you approach it from The Dharma Bums.

I agree that some oountries will have a speedier access to the world's literature than others, and I think lots of factors will help that. Certainly an opennessto other cultures is helped by the immigrant population, as it has in the UK, who also promote multiculturalism. It sounds as though Canada does too.

[stlukesguild]

I think the first thing that needs remedying is the annoying romanization systems. There is an almost perfect Latinization of Chinese into English (almost perfect if you know how to pronounce it, which takes about 20 minutes to learn) yet people still are using the nonsensical Wade-Gilles romanization which makes Beijing Peking, Li Bai/Bo to Li Po, and Dao De Jing into Tao Te Ching.

JBI... that's just more of you PC academic nonsense. Its just a self-righteous superiority complex no different from that which insists that we use Native-American for Indian (even though neither are more accurate) or African-American for Black (in spite of the fact that a great majority of Black Americans dislike the term... going back to Martin Luther King). I share a studio with a Chinese artist who has made it clear that neither manner mirrors the actual Chinese pronunciations... and these are even quite open to variation within China itself, considering the broad array of dialects in China. This also ignores the fact that we Anglicize the pronunciations of a vast percentage of cities and nations around the world. Since when do the French pronounce Paris with an "S"? When did Firenze become Florence or Köln become Cologne. When did the natives of Köln become German and not Deutsch? When did Aachen become Aix la Chapelle?

[stlukesguild]

What about Africa and the Middle East, JBI? Is Canada ahead of the curve there too?

Undoubtedly... while the United States will soon be Canada's poor cousin.:rolleyes:

[JCamilo]

I shall change both Canada and USA to North Oceania...

[Quark]

This is a good topic (the world canon part of it, that is, not the Bloom criticism). It sounds like there's a lot of interest for a list of great works from across the globe, but I question not only whether anyone could read enough to come to any decision but also how we would decide who gets to make the list. As has been pointed out already, critics and institutions that study literature typically have a preoccupation with the works from their own country. Or, as in Canada apparently, the focus is on ethnicity or language, and countries populated by certain races are privileged because there's a matching population in the critics's nation. In any case, there isn't any kind of literary United Nations that could disinterestedly pass judgment on world literature. Instead, there's highly-specialized and nationally-oriented critics who have neither the time nor the incentive to create a good canon. I like the idea of a world canon. I think it would be especially useful now, as there's an increasing awareness of literary traditions in other countries yet very little said about them--either in popular magazines like the Times Literary Supplement or the main scholarly journals like EHL. We're all interested in what's been written on other continents, but there isn't a much of an international consensus on what great literature is. At least, there isn't one understood by casual readers, and that makes it difficult for publishers to market works from an unfamiliar country.

I think this is the biggest problem to creating a world canon. It may be possible to find which books are the best from each society, but how does one adjudicate between the claims of scholars of let's say Japanese literature and those studying British literature. How does one assess the greatest work of Japanese literature with the greatest work of British literature? Should every society gets equal representation on the list? How would one categorize world literature? By nation? Language? And, above all, who would get to make these decisions?

[JCamilo]

there is no such thing as creating a canon. It is created by itself. The best we can do is reckon if a book or not is part and trust others to do the same...

[JBI]

I think the first thing that needs remedying is the annoying romanization systems. There is an almost perfect Latinization of Chinese into English (almost perfect if you know how to pronounce it, which takes about 20 minutes to learn) yet people still are using the nonsensical Wade-Gilles romanization which makes Beijing Peking, Li Bai/Bo to Li Po, and Dao De Jing into Tao Te Ching.

JBI... that's just more of you PC academic nonsense. Its just a self-righteous superiority complex no different from that which insists that we use Native-American for Indian (even though neither are more accurate) or African-American for Black (in spite of the fact that a great majority of Black Americans dislike the term... going back to Martin Luther King). I share a studio with a Chinese artist who has made it clear that neither manner mirrors the actual Chinese pronunciations... and these are even quite open to variation within China itself, considering the broad array of dialects in China. This also ignores the fact that we Anglicize the pronunciations of a vast percentage of cities and nations around the world. Since when do the French pronounce Paris with an "S"? When did Firenze become Florence or Köln become Cologne. When did the natives of Köln become German and not Deutsch? When did Aachen become Aix la Chapelle?

Hanyu Pinyin is accurate though, if you know how to pronounce it - only a few phonetics are different, like zh ch and sh, as well as ji qi and xi, but even then - have you seen Wade Giles? Good luck pronouncing that. It is nothing close - Peking, for Beijing, as apposed to Bei3jing1 for Beijing (pronounced Bayy-Jing sort of like like Jingle but more open) If you are reading literature, it is good to know names of things - one is clearly a much closer romanization than the other, and, believe it or not, is actually known by every Chinese person pretty much who ever learned how to type. It isn't internet snobbery, it is common sense - there are bugs in it, but lets be honest - The Chinese use it, everyone who studies Chinese uses it, why shouldn't translations use it too?

You stab in one sense, but on the other, you have no problem using completely mistranslated names - what if we said Kakesperius, how would that sound? Or Hairisdoodle? It's enough that we need to suffer Titian, Albert Durer, and Florence, but to use a system which makes reading in English even more complicated? What is easier, tell me, to read the simple Bai Juyi, or Po Chü-i ? (pronounced Buy(rising)-jwee(level)-yi(falling))

It isn't a snobbery question, it is a common sense one. I think that is why most translators have finally switched to Pinyin already, because they realize it is a better system - it' s just people like to still float around the archaic names that make no sense.


The Pinyin system was designed to be closer to the English phonetic pronunciations of the words, and easier to write as well (hence why Ju=jwee, instead of Jew, which is zhu). The actually pairing of consonants and vowels in Wade Gilles doesn't match English in the slightest - it is like learning a whole new set of pronunciations of each character.

[lawpark]

I think this is the biggest problem to creating a world canon. It may be possible to find which books are the best from each society, but how does one adjudicate between the claims of scholars of let's say Japanese literature and those studying British literature. How does one assess the greatest work of Japanese literature with the greatest work of British literature? Should every society gets equal representation on the list? How would one categorize world literature? By nation? Language? And, above all, who would get to make these decisions?

This problem exist with all canonization. Among all the Japanese, who decide what is better work than another work? Among English-speaking folks, who decides / who has decided what is the greatest work of literature? Well, for the latter the answer can be more clear ... the 19th century Romantics had a big say in these matters it turned out, and Harold Bloom dares to say it. Did Harold Bloom make a decision? Yes. Did he make Shakespeare canonical? No. But, Bloom clearly has a role in increasing interest (in the past couple of decades) in Shakespeare's dramas as canonical texts.

I have taken a crack at creating a list of world canon that is developed on some deliberate objectives and criteria. (http://lawpark.jimdo.com/the-list/) Take a look if interested!

[Heteronym]

Regarding The Tale of the Genji: while acknowledging the fact that I haven't read it, I'll risk suggesting that it doesn't really belong in Leslie Schenk's desired canon. The first translations of this novel into western languages happened in the 20th century.

In other words it has missed being as influential as Rabelais, Cervantes, Diderot or Sterne. People should really stop looking at the canon as a question of importance (or national quotas) and more as a question of influence. I'll suggest The Tale of the Genji has not influenced any great novelist of renown: not Dostoevsky, not Tolstoy, not Mann. No one. But consider this: Franz Kafka, who's only been around for less than a century, influenced Kobo Abe, one of the greatest novelists of Japan. For that reason Kafka has his place assured in any canon. He matters. The Tale of the Genji, for its old age, deserves to be in a museum as a curiosity, but it's not a living part of literature in the way Don Quixote, for instance, continues to be.

[JBI]

Regarding The Tale of the Genji: while acknowledging the fact that I haven't read it, I'll risk suggesting that it doesn't really belong in Leslie Schenk's desired canon. The first translations of this novel into western languages happened in the 20th century.

In other words it has missed being as influential as Rabelais, Cervantes, Diderot or Sterne. People should really stop looking at the canon as a question of importance (or national quotas) and more as a question of influence. I'll suggest The Tale of the Genji has not influenced any great novelist of renown: not Dostoevsky, not Tolstoy, not Mann. No one. But consider this: Franz Kafka, who's only been around for less than a century, influenced Kobo Abe, one of the greatest novelists of Japan. For that reason Kafka has his place assured in any canon. He matters. The Tale of the Genji, for its old age, deserves to be in a museum as a curiosity, but it's not a living part of literature in the way Don Quixote, for instance, continues to be.

Why would anyone look to influence even in that regard - influence and aesthetics are often connected, but not necessarily, Books written today are not influential at the moment, but can be great, for instance, whereas letters are often important documents, but boring literature, etc.

As for Genji though, it is highly influential - the problem is some people only judge literature as what has influenced the English, or another tradition, the same way some people think the US only has one tradition - simply put, world traditions are for everybody. :thumbsup:

The whole idea that either Japan or China have monopolies over their texts is silly - the works of literature belong to all people, the same way traditions belong to all people. One can enjoy Philip Roth for instance without needing to be Jewish or American. Everyone should read great work.

As for the US, it has many traditions, because it has many different peoples. IT sometimes forgets that, but as a whole, the academies, at least the good ones, don't.

I am Canadian, should I only read a Canadian tradition? 20% of Canadians were not born here, over 30% speak French as their mother tongue - where does the Englishman's Canon, a list which, ironically, was compiled to educate the colonized Indians about how to be English, represent me? And the American one?

But still, I read those books, since some of them are excellent, the same way I try to read books from other languages - I read lots of books in Chinese, for instance - I read and speak the language - does that mean I am Chinese? No, I am Canadian, does that mean I do not belong? Maybe the Chinese would think so, but their literature is universal and they don't control it.

[lawpark]

Heteronym seems to have raised an interesting question on what counts as "influence" - does it only count when an author influenced other authors? Or rather, does it only count when a well-known authors influenced other well-known authors? (here comes the derivative question as to what is well-known, and maybe that is what JBI is reacting to, if one only knows western authors, then ultimately it all just still comes down to a western canon.)

But there is also another question: what does influence need to be on other authors? couldn't it also means general readership? or maybe just what people in a tradition's perception of a text being influential is sufficient for it to be considered influential? And what type of influence counts? Does it need to be like Homer influenced Virgil, Virgil influenced Dante? Or can it be something like Caesar's influence on all Latin writers? (in the sense that presumably most school children who learnt Latin learnt Caesar's text at some point) What defines influence?

I personally looked at scale of influence by proxy - 1) Scale of the tradition; and 2) Reputation / perceived influence within the tradition. I didn't include any Japanese texts in my world canon list of 36 texts mostly because of 1). Such exclusion clearly wouldn't be defensible if the list of texts are longer (say a list of 100 or 120 texts).

[JBI]

But take Genji, he is the model for Japanese authors - the text is both poetically relevant for the tradition of verse, as well as relevant as prose - authors have flocked to it, read and been influenced. Just because they weren't white doesn't make them less important as players.

[Aylinn]

JBI is absolutely right. The Tale of the Genji is unknown to the great majority of Westerners, but it is very well-known in Japan.

I'm interested in Japanese animation and I've come across references to The Tale of the Genji in anime. If this book were obscure, they wouldn't be there.

[Heteronym]

For me the importance of a text is who influenced who. Cervantes is important because Don Quixote has touched nearly every living novelist, whether they know it or not. The novel left Spain and conquered the world. Outside Japan, who has The Tale of the Genji touched? Is it a great novel, aesthetically speaking? Maybe, I frankly don't care. Aesthetic means nothing to me. Dostoevsky was reputedly a terrible prose writer, greatly improved by translations; so was Poe. But they've also conquered the world. Aesthetically poor, perhaps not in the league of a Joyce or a Nabokov, but infinitely more important than either. So you can come here and claim that this Japanese novel is a great novel, it's beautifully written, etc., but what matters is this: who are the people who matter who were touched by it? Who read it and then, under its influence, created great new works of literature?

[lawpark]

but what matters is this: who are the people who matter who were touched by it? Who read it and then, under its influence, created great new works of literature?

These questions posed are somewhat logically problematic in the following way:

1. In the first question - if you define "the people who matter" only as those modern western writers, then of course Tale of Genji does not matter. But from what the others are saying, Tale of Genji clearly matters till now for Japanese writers.

2. In the second question - ultimately reference goes back to "great new works of literature" - which is an aesthetic judgment - assumably new work would not have influence in this case. So if say one thinks some modern Japanese fiction under influence of Genji is "great new works of literature", one should consider Genji to have influence.

3. Pushed to the extreme, if the statement (you didn't say it this way) becomes "influential texts are those that somehow leads to other influential texts", then if you ask the question recursively it will need to refer to what is being written now as the starting (or end) point; but unfortunately all that is being written now would not be influential, thus this whole recursive way of raising the question falls apart as it implies there are no influential texts in the world.

[JCamilo]

Influence does not look on "People" but culture. Shakespeare influence is and can also be measured by the number of expressions or words that came from his text or where made popular by it.

Also, the same way Greek culture is influential, Shakespeare texts became: Romeo and Juliet became by his hand typos of our culture.

Obviously, the influence is also looked by its impact on readership and editorial process. Dom Quixote is influential there also. There is numbers reggarding translations, sales, etc that show its influence over time. The impact of XIX novel readership is analysed from the point of view of reading costume, also.

Nobody decides what is influential. At best, I decide what I like. So, anyone studying me will say who had influence over me. Not over history.

You obviously can try to pull out rankings, you would look the number of times an author is mentioned in different works, how many times he is translated, his continual publishing history, his effects on other arts (Shakespeare for example is Hollywood's most adapted author),etc. But why so?

[Alexander III]

For me the importance of a text is who influenced who. Cervantes is important because Don Quixote has touched nearly every living novelist, whether they know it or not. The novel left Spain and conquered the world. Outside Japan, who has The Tale of the Genji touched? Is it a great novel, aesthetically speaking? Maybe, I frankly don't care. Aesthetic means nothing to me. Dostoevsky was reputedly a terrible prose writer, greatly improved by translations; so was Poe. But they've also conquered the world. Aesthetically poor, perhaps not in the league of a Joyce or a Nabokov, but infinitely more important than either. So you can come here and claim that this Japanese novel is a great novel, it's beautifully written, etc., but what matters is this: who are the people who matter who were touched by it? Who read it and then, under its influence, created great new works of literature?

But the major flaw in your argument is that you know very well the series of influences of western lit, but you don't know those of eastern lit.

For example, Edward Spenser has had no influence upon any major chinese or japanese writer. So following your logic, Edward Spenser is not a great poet?

Also I cant think of a single Indian writer who has been influenced by Don Quixote, so does that mean that it is not a major work.

It seems very natural that a work of the East has had little impact upon the west, Europeans only began to take easter culture seriously after Napoleons conquest of Egypt. And even then it was not until late 19th century france that, the Orient became popular as a idea of a rival body of culture to the west.

And lets face it, up until world war II, most of the east Belonged to the West, it was never seen as an equal but mostly patronizingly.

Much like until the 20th century the Chinese never took Wester culture seriously as we were perceived as barbarians to them.

So is it not strange to judge a western work by it's influence in the east, or vice versa?

I mean Genji in japan is the equivalent of Dante for us Italians or Shakespeare for the Brits, or Pushkin for the Russians.

Mentioning Pushkin has also reminded me of another problem of judging writers by solely influence. If we are to judge by influence, Lord Byron is undoubtedly the greatest writer of Europe. As much as I like his poetry I can easily think of a dozen writers who a greater than him...

So judging by only influence is flawed

[lawpark]

Influence does not look on "People" but culture.
...
You obviously can try to pull out rankings, you would look the number of times an author is mentioned in different works, how many times he is translated, his continual publishing history, his effects on other arts (Shakespeare for example is Hollywood's most adapted author),etc. But why so?

Putting back in the context of "Toward a World Canon" - I guess one of the objectives of any such list would be to provide pointers to people (could be general readers, could be undergraduates, or anyone who happens to care).

At least in the educational area, one plausible objective is to gain insights into major cultural traditions that make up the contemporary world through readign their canonical texts. If a list is for this purpose, then the question of influence cannot be avoided.

Granted though that if one sees a canon as a list of "good literature books to read", then the list of books could be judged by aesthetic considerations alone ... however, in that case, we probably shouldn't call the list a "canon" in the first place.

So, whether a canon is truly needed or useful, that is a question that one needs to answer for oneself. However, assuming one is needed, and more specifically, if a "world canon" is needed, then the question of influence cannot be avoided.

[JCamilo]

A world canon as a list is impossible. In the end, a list is a showcase for absolutes and the Canon is trully something more subtle. It is not just JBI brining chinese literature, but it is a work losing it mass capacity of expression due to many reasons (idiom end, society end, extreme philosophical shift) while retaining underground power. We may today say "Anatole France was a top hit when alive, today just an average dude that few read" and it only proves that today Anatole France lost his appeal just happened with many which recovered it.

I would say, a safe canon place can be measured by a work or author returning. They are forgotten and remembered, it is more power than having never been forgotten.

[lawpark]

A world canon as a list is impossible. In the end, a list is a showcase for absolutes and the Canon is trully something more subtle. It is not just JBI brining chinese literature, but it is a work losing it mass capacity of expression due to many reasons (idiom end, society end, extreme philosophical shift) while retaining underground power. We may today say "Anatole France was a top hit when alive, today just an average dude that few read" and it only proves that today Anatole France lost his appeal just happened with many which recovered it.

I would say, a safe canon place can be measured by a work or author returning. They are forgotten and remembered, it is more power than having never been forgotten.

I don't disagree that some works have "underground (aesthetic) power"; but how does that make a world canon list impossible, especially if the list is NOT a list of absolutes (e.g. "greatest", "most well-written", "most aesthetically pleasing"), but as a list for the general reader / undergraduate to have a starting point in understanding the world's cultural heritage?

[Arrowni]

The world canon would be fallacious since it isn't a canon for anything, for starters, nobody has read this assumed non-existent canon so we may as well use the world "collection". Obviously, talking about a western canon or even a canadian canon is absurd, but given the juncture in cultural/academic/aesthetical choices, we can imagine a cannon comprising such collection. This is just false with a world canon.

Now, if the world canon is just a collection of every minor canon in existence -even if you push them into a theoretical basis of all-encompasing academism as we suggested before-, then you can probably look it up and create the complete list only using academic textbooks from different nations. The canon would still make no sense, but it isn't far from possible in our current situation.

[lawpark]

The world canon would be fallacious since it isn't a canon for anything, for starters, nobody has read this assumed non-existent canon so we may as well use the world "collection". Obviously, talking about a western canon or even a canadian canon is absurd, but given the juncture in cultural/academic/aesthetical choices, we can imagine a cannon comprising such collection. This is just false with a world canon.

Now, if the world canon is just a collection of every minor canon in existence -even if you push them into a theoretical basis of all-encompasing academism as we suggested before-, then you can probably look it up and create the complete list only using academic textbooks from different nations. The canon would still make no sense, but it isn't far from possible in our current situation.

Isn't a canon just a collection or list of books that some consider to be somehow "important", and somehow deserving broader recognition by others to be so? A canon is just a mental grouping / construction of something (texts in this case) already exist in the world. A world canon may be non-existent today, but clearly it could be created if deemed useful / meaningful. And most books included are read by many people - just like other Western Canon list consisting of hundreds or thousands of books - it is doubtful how many single person has read through the whole list - but it does not seem to matter, as long as the books selected are indeed widely read.

A canon is a mental construction ("imagination") just like most other collective nouns ... e.g. "the West". And at this point of history, it does not look like "the world" is of any more imaginary than "the West". And given the emergence of "global elite", the concept of "the world' may have a more concrete unity than the abstract unity of "humanity". Even "World History" has been emerging strongly as an academic discipline in the past two decades.

[JCamilo]

I don't disagree that some works have "underground (aesthetic) power"; but how does that make a world canon list impossible, especially if the list is NOT a list of absolutes (e.g. "greatest", "most well-written", "most aesthetically pleasing"), but as a list for the general reader / undergraduate to have a starting point in understanding the world's cultural heritage?

Making a list is not impossible. But the world canon is more a subtle organism, an cultural effect. It would be like that story of the guy who make in his garden the map of his country, with all details. You feel the canon, you cannt define it, as you cann't do with anything that has a tendecy to infinite.

[lawpark]

JCamilo - you make the Canon sounds almost the same as the "Matrix". Maybe it is!

[ralfyman]

Look for published anthologies or collections based on region or country.

[Arrowni]

A canon is a mental construction ("imagination")

While I agree that abstractions are abstract, the difference between World canon and western canon is that western canon is an imagination assumed "representative" of a certain academy or scholarship. World canon would represent nobody and thus is an abstraction without a practical application.

You could -arguably- built an academy or a school upon a certain concept of worldly canon, but it wouldn't be any worldly because of you, it would be just yours. Canon only makes sense because it's naturally correlated with social constructs, since World canon doesn't correlate to anything, it's purely random -which doesn't make it wrong nor useless by itself, but the fact is there-.

[JCamilo]

There is no difference, or do yuo think there is an academy or scholarship that represents all west?

Plus, Shakespeare for example, canonized out of academy and scholarship.

[Arrowni]

The western canon doesn't represents all the west, that's just the given name for it. The canon in the other hand exists, it's an aesthetic choice made by academics that can be confirmed and more or less uniform.

The world canon wouldn't be A) worldy in any sense, we can name it that way and pick several countries, make an international canon and still it won't represent the world -as you said yourself in the case of the Western canon- and B) it won't be real, unless it's actually practiced and considered by a group of people, if the canon it's so big it cannot be read, it's not a canon for anyone.

[JBI]

While I agree that abstractions are abstract, the difference between World canon and western canon is that western canon is an imagination assumed "representative" of a certain academy or scholarship. World canon would represent nobody and thus is an abstraction without a practical application.

You could -arguably- built an academy or a school upon a certain concept of worldly canon, but it wouldn't be any worldly because of you, it would be just yours. Canon only makes sense because it's naturally correlated with social constructs, since World canon doesn't correlate to anything, it's purely random -which doesn't make it wrong nor useless by itself, but the fact is there-.

You are assuming either of them are canonical - the idea of a Western canon makes an assumption of what isn't Western, or isn't canonical - such a geographic scope is ridiculous and just as abstract - in truth, it is also ridiculous - what is west, what is east. Even Said's Orientalism uses a definition of Orient that is not in keeping with, lets say, an American concept of Orient.

The idea of space is a construction - Spanish literature, Portuguese literature are less represented than Italian or French literature to the English reader. Simply put Portugal is more west than Germany.

Now, as for the canon ala Bloom, it seems a construct of a dead sense of thought. Europe itself isn't even in agreement of what is West.


Both are weird abstractions, and both fail, but the idea of a world canon just implies people break down the borders on what they read, the real problem is this:

Language

Culture.

There are far easier books than The Story of Stone (Dream of Red Chamber) or The Tale of Genji.

The first thing someone will hit when they go for Genji is the problem of names, customs, and actions. They are hard to overcome, and translators have taken to either changing the names to proper nouns from titles and epithets, or to providing extensive footnotes - but still the book is elusive.

The second thing is language - which translation, how does the translation compare, how is the texture of the language different, especially since it is such a poetic novel and Japanese, being a heavily inflected language, handles the subtleties of language differently than, lets say, English.


Big problem there, and where does that put the book to a Canadian reader? Well the answer is simple, it is so good a book that it is worth the effort. That is when the notion of world canon comes in - what is worth the time investment, even if translation is used as sacrifice for a go between? I bet you there are enough books like that to fill a life time, but that is what we would consider world Canon, Walt Whitman, and Wordsworth included, who aren't as easy to perhaps Indonesian readers as someone else may be.

There is a reason the Bible seems to be potent virtually everywhere, and I would argue it comes from its power as literature. The same with the Koran.


In the end though, it is not a question of the study of literature. In general the study of literature is very specific, the enjoyment of literature a whole other beast. The world canon is for those who wish to enjoy the best the widest scope has to offer, there is no concrete list, generally one sees a rough idea of what is available, by asking or browsing and lets their imagination and interests lead the way. That is the canon, in reality, a synthesis of appreciation.

[lawpark]

Have been travelling these days. Two general thoughts:

1) Representation - my argument is the "world" is as representative as the "west" is representative. Maybe both does not make much sense, but as a social construct, if nowadays "world history" as a discipline is starting to make sense (hard work over the past 20 years in academic circles, and still a small movement compared with other types of history), "world canon" may as well. World history started to emerge in US when the student base becomes so international and multi-cultural ... no reason why it wouldn't be the case for world canon.

2. I tend to agree with JBI that the "broadening" faces barrier because of language and culture, but also agree that it can be overcome if there are enough reasons to do so. I personally think the Russian novels also have too many unfamiliar names, but if the writing is as good as in W&P or Brothers K, it may well be worth the efforts.

[Arrowni]

I'm not assuming its canon, there are actual academics which consider it a canon, Bloom actually built upon the practice of those academies. I'm not saying its actually a Western canon, I don't care what name we use, we can say western anglophone canon, or stuck-up academic canon if you want, but the reality of this concept of canon its that it represent a mindset that actually exists. Some consider it canon, hence it's an actual canon.

A world canon, in the true sense of the word, will never be an actual canon, because a limited and organized number of people will never represent the world. By the same admission those people don't represent "the west", but they are supposed to represent something. Those academic exist and set a canon which is actually applied into some academies.

[JCamilo]

You are going to argue that nothing can represent nothing except itself. And it is very fine, but again, the same way a world canon does not represent the world, the western canon does not represent the west. The same way, a Italian canon is made by some people who obviously do not represent all people in italy. It is all the same, you just have a broader world.

[hanzklein]

JBI is absolutely right. The Tale of the Genji is unknown to the great majority of Westerners, but it is very well-known in Japan.

I'm interested in Japanese animation and I've come across references to The Tale of the Genji in anime. If this book were obscure, they wouldn't be there.

That comment is unfounded. You'd be surprised. I remember that book popping up various times in high school as a subject of discussion. More so than any other novel I can recall (that is, a novel we were academically talking about but not reading).

[Arrowni]

You are going to argue that nothing can represent nothing except itself. And it is very fine, but again, the same way a world canon does not represent the world, the western canon does not represent the west. The same way, a Italian canon is made by some people who obviously do not represent all people in italy. It is all the same, you just have a broader world.

But western canon, while not being western, its still canon for some people -academics-. Since those random academics actually matter somewhat in the diffusion and discussion of written materials, they advance the canon as something useless. For the World canon to make sense, there would need to be a similar entity which allows the same consistency around the whole world, which is much less likely to happen in our current age.

[JCamilo]

And you think not?
Members of Litnet assume the world canon (the Western Canon is a derivation of Cannons, they exist since ever, for the very idea of tradition is the option to select and preserve determinated texts). The idea of a world wide representation, be Canon, United Nations, FIFA, etc is always false and true. They represent a strong idea of those groups but never all those members. Be platonic, be aristotelic.

[lawpark]

Makes me wonder if UNESCO has anything like this ...

[JBI]

Makes me wonder if UNESCO has anything like this ...

Meh, There is a list somewhere of books that have been enshrined for world heritage reasons. I remember reading about it in the introduction of my copy of Soseki's Kokoro.

[lawpark]

In the UNESCO's world digital library (WDL) the Tale of Genji is very prominent, but I wasn't able to find something like a canon list from these guys ...