What is canon?

[mi_bella]

Hello. I recently found this forum while browsing online. It seemed like the right place to ask this question: What is meant by canon?

I know an english teacher who says he only reads canon and refuses to read anything else. By his definition, canon refers to classical books and anything else refers to recently written books. So what is canon? Is it better than other type of literature? And why?

[Leland Gaunt]

Canon is God. It is unquestionable, infallible, and where all things good in this world come from.

(I think it is a bunch of books, that are well-written and occasionaly thought provoking. But...)

[mi_bella]

Canon is God. It is unquestionable, infallible, and where all things good in this world come from.

(I think it is a bunch of books, that are well-written and occasionaly thought provoking. But...)

So whether or not a book is canon is basically an opinion?

[dafydd manton]

The canon is a word given to certain books that self-appointed experts have decided amongst themselves are the only ones worth reading. (This is not the case with certain ancient collections of books). To limit oneself to "the canon" is like deciding only ever to eat Chinese food, when other kinds are on offer. It has nothing to do with God, in the broad sense of literature. I hope this helps.

[jimjonesrobot]

There's a few meanings.

There's biblical canon - a set of books that are 'officially' considered to be highly influential (different books for different religion).

Someone can be referring to various works set in the same fictional world when talking about canon. So, for example, the Bond canon, or the Sherlock Holmes canon. These days it's more used for sci-fi series.

And there's also terms like the 'Western canon' which is probably what you teacher was talking about. It refers to books that have helped define western culture (so typically classic books). It's open to debate at just books are influential.

To me, it just comes across as pretentious for someone to say "I only read canonical books".

Edit: beaten by dafydd manton

If you want to read about the western canon, check out the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_canon).

[Leland Gaunt]

So whether or not a book is canon is basically an opinion?
Not quite. You would be wrong in trying to pass off Terry Pratchett as canon. But then again I am not an expert on the canon, if your looking for one, there are plenty around here. stlukes guild is very knowledgable on the subject.

The canon is a word given to certain books that self-appointed experts have decided amongst themselves are the only ones worth reading. (This is not the case with certain ancient collections of books). To limit oneself to "the canon" is like deciding only ever to eat Chinese food, when other kinds are on offer. It has nothing to do with God, in the broad sense of literature. I hope this helps.
I think this explains it pretty well.
Dafydd, I'm not sure if your referring to my post or not. If you are then, I assure you that I was joking around about the whole God thing. It's just that the defenders of canon, sometimes remind me of religous folk.

[Drkshadow03]

It's the thing you shoot stuff out of in the circus and on military campaigns of the 19th century.

[kelby_lake]

Hello. I recently found this forum while browsing online. It seemed like the right place to ask this question: What is meant by canon?

I know an english teacher who says he only reads canon and refuses to read anything else. By his definition, canon refers to classical books and anything else refers to recently written books. So what is canon? Is it better than other type of literature? And why?

The canon is an approved collection of books by scholars- in other words, the books they deem classics.

Basically, if something's old and still in print, chances are it will be in the canon. But this teacher sounds a little silly.

[Delta40]

i heard it for the first time at uni on Tuesday. the prof says canonic literature is high brow where popular literature is, to him mistakenly referred to as low brow literature. Daniel dafoe is low brow but has earned the title of respectability over time. but my prof says he is the first western pop lit writer. I have no opinion either way.

[Evaril]

I'm inclined to think that canonical books and classics are different, although they do overlap a lot. Canonical books are those that have helped shape a culture, and would be what someone of that culture would have a person of another read who would like to learn about the former culture. Classics are simply well-written books (well-written taken in the broad sense to mean well-argued, well-styled, well-structured, well-peopled, etc.). To take a case in point, an unread well-written book would not be considered a canon (unread being subjective, since Proust, for example, is mostly read by scholars but is considered canonical). Classics tend to stay classics forever but canons tend to change a lot since relevance to the times is considered a criterion. I'm also inclined to think that canonical books are a smaller subset of the classics, though I haven't thought much about this point.

[mal4mac]

"The Canon, a word religious in its origins, has become a choice among texts struggling with one another for survival, whether you interpret the choice as being made by dominant social groups, institutions of education, traditions of criticism, or, as I do, by late-coming authors who feel themselves chosen by particular ancestral figures." - Harold Bloom, The Western Canon, p20.

[Jassy Melson]

There is such a thing in Western literature as The Canon. It is made up of the books that the majority of literate readers deem to be the most important, most literary works created in Western civilization. To be included in the Canon, a book must have some time behind it. That is why Paradise Lost is included in the Canon and Lord of the Flies is not.

[mal4mac]

There is such a thing in Western literature as The Canon. It is made up of the books that the majority of literate readers deem to be the most important, most literary works created in Western civilization. To be included in the Canon, a book must have some time behind it. That is why Paradise Lost is included in the Canon and Lord of the Flies is not.

This is ambiguous. Do you take literate to mean "able to read and write"
or "versed in literature". Hopefully you mean the latter, but, if so, this is still vague. You could call most anyone on LitNet 'versed in literature', but, hopefully, you don't look to LitNet to form the canon :)

Bloom thinks those "versed in literature" are "late-coming authors who feel themselves chosen by particular ancestral figures". So the creators of a canon must be (i) published authors (ii) take certain previous authors very seriously.

Bloom, certainly, includes modern novels in *his* canon, but makes your point that "a book must have some time behind it" for a sufficient consensus to place it in *the* canon. "Lord of the Flies" must be fairly close to canonization, though?

[Heteronym]

The canon is a word given to certain books that self-appointed experts have decided amongst themselves are the only ones worth reading.

I'm sensing here the sadly typical contempt for intellectuals and academia. You know, Newton was a self-appointed expert on gravity. No one told him, "Newton, we hereby grant you authority to go and find the law of gravity and then come back to tell us all about it." No, he studied by himself, made experiments, arrived at new conclusions and made them public.

Thus act literary critics. They study literature over years, decades, discover new things and then share their findings with people. And they're not the contemptible morons who refuse to read modern literature, like some claim. They just know, after studying literature, that Shakespeare really is more important than Terry Pratchett. Sorry, but that's a fact.

The Canon is the body of literature that has had a meaningful importance in our culture and society. So, writers like Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes, Milton, etc, are canonical because pretty much every writer draws inspiration from them. They're the foundations of modern literature.

I really don't understand this contempt for literary critics. I'd think that so-called book lovers would look with respect upon people who've out-read all of us.

[dafydd manton]

I think you're putting words in my mouth Heteronym. Such contempt does not exist in my mind. The contempt lies with those who make such pompous comments as the OP first mentioned. It is men like that who give any other kind of literature a stigma that it doesn't need. I don't consider my books as literature - anything but - but there are some works being written now that will be thought of as canonical eventually. The canonicity will not be decided upon by academics, though, it will be decided upon, at least initially, by the book's merits to the reader.
Academics I admire, largely. Pomposity, I don't.

[brave new tony]

Canonized Literary works are those which have stood the test of time and will always be accepted as good literature

[mayneverhave]

Canonized Literary works are those which have stood the test of time and will always be accepted as good literature

Quite a sweeping generalization. The canon shifts based on new trends in criticism. It has been suggested that the strong topical concentrations of works like, say Animal Farm, may make it difficult for them to reach generations of readers down the road. At some point, the socialist-satire of Animal Farm will seem as dated as Dryden's criticism of 17th century English political machinations in Absalom and Achitophel.

Even poets that wrote in times quite remote from us experience ups and downs in their critical standing - usually due to the efforts of individual critics or writers who resurface a given writer to their benefit or their detriment: poets like John Donne and William Blake.

With other works, such as Ulysses or Absalom, Absalom!, their place in the canon is seemingly maintained merely by the academics, or people with enough patience or education to struggle through, let alone appreciate them. Although novels like The Great Gatsby continue to reach a large readership, the more difficult 20th century novels seem to be walking on ice.

[brave new tony]

I agree whole heartedly. The literary canon is based on the ever evolving taste of alleged critics and experts. Much of what is canonized and what is not is still up for debate. However I made a generalization because the individual who started this forum , I assumed, wanted a general explanation.

[JBI]

"The Canon, a word religious in its origins, has become a choice among texts struggling with one another for survival, whether you interpret the choice as being made by dominant social groups, institutions of education, traditions of criticism, or, as I do, by late-coming authors who feel themselves chosen by particular ancestral figures." - Harold Bloom, The Western Canon, p20.

Hmm, I don't think Shakespeare is struggling for survival.

[The Comedian]

A canon is a list of books that professor types like, but few people really read -- even the professor types. It's sort of like fashion, only for books. There are some that are timeless -- blue jeans & Shakespeare, sun dresses & Jane Austen. And there are some that are trendy -- zoot suits & Michel Foucault.

[JCamilo]

I agree whole heartedly. The literary canon is based on the ever evolving taste of alleged critics and experts. Much of what is canonized and what is not is still up for debate. However I made a generalization because the individual who started this forum , I assumed, wanted a general explanation.

That is because there is two different things, The Canon and the list. The canon are just those books which history has selected to be the most relevant books of their culture. This as Idea is not open to debate, once a book or author is canonize, even future disdain of society wont change his past relevance. Which is not relevated to popularity. The best you can do is add books who are overlooked in the past.
Definitions such as "books some experts decide to be the only reading" is just a infantile rebelion, contempt for tradition. Does not work at all.
As the lists, which is what your teacher is talking, since he picks book from there, is just a personal view of what books are relevant. Not the Canon itself, which is impossible to be defined in the sense of telling all books that are part of it.

[brave new tony]

That is because there is two different things, The Canon and the list. The canon are just those books which history has selected to be the most relevant books of their culture. This as Idea is not open to debate, once a book or author is canonize, even future disdain of society wont change his past relevance. Which is not relevated to popularity. The best you can do is add books who are overlooked in the past.
Definitions such as "books some experts decide to be the only reading" is just a infantile rebelion, contempt for tradition. Does not work at all.
As the lists, which is what your teacher is talking, since he picks book from there, is just a personal view of what books are relevant. Not the Canon itself, which is impossible to be defined in the sense of telling all books that are part of it.

I'm sorry but due to the atrocious grammar and spelling in your post, I am compelled to think you do not know what you are writing about. "Relevated" isn't a word. Most of your sentences did not make sense. I hate to be so critical, but this is a forum on literature. Spelling and grammar are important.

[stlukesguild]

I'm sorry but due to the atrocious grammar and spelling in your post, I am compelled to think you do not know what you are writing about. "Relevated" isn't a word. Most of your sentences did not make sense. I hate to be so critical, but this is a forum on literature. Spelling and grammar are important.

So I'm wondering just how perfectly you might argue a point in a second language. JCamilo is more than knowledgeable when it comes to literature... but hailing from Brazil, English is not his native tongue. When you are new to a site, it behooves you to learn a bit about long-term members before you begin to criticize them.

[brave new tony]

Perhaps his point would have been better taken in his native tongue. I am indifferent to ESL contributors, bad English is bad English.

[JBI]

Perhaps his point would have been better taken in his native tongue. I am indifferent to ESL contributors, bad English is bad English.

Be warned: every grammar mistake you make will now be pointed out. It's actually disgusting the xenophobia in your post - simply put, bad grammar is bad grammar, but that does not determine the quality of their arguments.

But then again, I am indifferent to stupid contributors, mediocre ideas are mediocre ideas.

Just a point of fact, "bad English" in itself is "bad English."

[stlukesguild]

Ah! So he should master English or not bother to participate in discussions of literature here?. That seems rather pretentious... if not close-minded... even xenophobic to an extent. And people wonder about the continued image of the "Ugly American"? "Learn to speak Amerkin or get the hell out!":patriot::icon_bs::out:

By the same token, you should should obviously refrain from any discussions of the "canon" outside of the English-language canon until you have mastered the given language enough to read it and debate it in the original.:ciappa:

[stlukesguild]

By the way... English is not JBI's native tongue, either, yet I doubt many could debate him him in English or read and write as well as he does in English.

[JBI]

Ah! So he should master English or not bother to participate in discussions of literature here?. That seems rather pretentious... if not close-minded... even xenophobic to an extent. And people wonder about the continued image of the "Ugly American"? "Learn to speak Amerkin or get the hell out!":patriot::icon_bs::out:

By the same token, you should should obviously refrain from any discussions of the "canon" outside of the English-language canon until you have mastered the given language enough to read it and debate it in the original.:ciappa:

Nah, it's only a bunch of texts sanctioned by professors and critics anyway.

The sad thing is, that is an ignorant and culturally limited presumption as it is. It applies to an extent to the west, but one could also say that in reality it is the textual tradition of a culture that creates the Canon.

JCamilo is right about the undefined nature of it, given its fluctuation (people merely guess at it) and also that one cannot "remove" a person from the canon at a specific point - given that their acceptance at a particular point of time was acceptance, regardless of contemporary trends.

Even so though, for cultures that didn't have as rigid Scholastic traditions, namely everywhere but Europe pretty much until the modern period, canons still existed.

The Chinese Canon was actually collected into one book, after undergoing an inquisitional censor.

Certain traditions though, namely those influenced by Confucius, tend to have a strong penchant for selective canonization. Japan, Korea, and China all had extensive canonized editions of works, and a great acceptance of historical president, without this "struggle" that is, with out this agon drive that Bloom insists is essential to the Western tradition.

That being said though, if you take any major anthology from these traditions you get a good look at a rather interesting literary subculture, of inside jokes and tropes, similar to the subcultures you get in Western literature.

Canonical notions will always prevail, given the shared platform of literary development must be governed by a set of conventions to make sense, and those conventions always end up being traced to a set of models - Sherlock Holmes and others for Mysteries, and Modernist fiction for thrillers, etc.

Simply put, we look to the models for instruction how to proceed. The tradition must be there, even in the most radical writers, Whitman, Petrarch, Blake, all the way to Li Bai, Du Fu, Hitomaro, and beyond.

[brave new tony]

Ah! So he should master English or not bother to participate in discussions of literature here?. That seems rather pretentious... if not close-minded... even xenophobic to an extent. And people wonder about the continued image of the "Ugly American"? "Learn to speak Amerkin or get the hell out!":patriot::icon_bs::out:

By the same token, you should should obviously refrain from any discussions of the "canon" outside of the English-language canon until you have mastered the given language enough to read it and debate it in the original.:ciappa:

Well I am okay with that. My literary prowess is limited to English works. I realize now that my former statement was rather close minded, but if I am going to be challenged in something as petty as the difference between the canon and the list (which I believe he is wrong about) I want said challenge to make sense. His post did not.

[JBI]

By the way... English is not JBI's native tongue, either, yet I doubt many could debate him him in English or read and write as well as he does in English.

Thank you for the flattery, though I have a penchant for unedited, rather ungrammatical sentences, so perhaps my writing is "bad English" as well. As for my arguments, well, hit and miss at most.

[JBI]

Well I am okay with that. My literary prowess is limited to English works. I realize now that my former statement was rather close minded, but if I am going to be challenged in something as petty as the difference between the canon and the list (which I believe he is wrong about) I want said challenge to make sense. His post did not.

Sorry to say this, but if your "literary prowess" is limited to English, then you cannot possibly have a literary prowess in English.

That's like having a great knowledge of T. S. Eliot without reading anything he makes allusion to.

His argument is actually quite sensible, in that it articulates the comparison between a notion of concrete, and abstract. It's the same way we understand morality as something fluctuating. To take that as an example - nobody has the ultimate moral code - even if they profess it, as some zealots do. But we do all have a sense of the "moral" as it is relevant to ourselves, and our culture. Likewise, the canon is figured in a similar way.

Now, you may argue it is critics who "determine it," but honestly, is something good because we like it, or do we like it because it is good? It calls comes down to Platonic reasoning.

Was there something in these texts that made them attractive to critical minds? I would argue that it is the texts that form the canon, rather than critics or professors - they merely give an interpretation.

[stlukesguild]

JCamilo is right about the undefined nature of it, given its fluctuation (people merely guess at it)

Yes... I agree with the notion of an abstract ideal of a canon that cannot be reduced to a simple list. Bloom's failing in his Western Canon may have been the manner in which his list suggested something of the final word... an all-inclusive canon... when there are certainly an endless array of other great books that might be equally deserving of recognition. Of course any number of other lists come with equally pretentious titles: The Greatest Novels of the Twentieth Century, 100 Books You Should Read Before You Die, The Hundred Greatest Books Ever Written. perhaps David Denby's Great Books is closer to the right direction... the title suggests little more than "Here are 50 or 100 great books... not to suggest that there aren't any number of others that are also 'great'."

[stlukesguild]

Thank you for the flattery, though I have a penchant for unedited, rather ungrammatical sentences, so perhaps my writing is "bad English" as well. As for my arguments, well, hit and miss at most.

Without the online spell-check I would be doomed:goof:... while my grammar or use language... for better or worse... owes much to my penchant for older writers and and their grandiloquence.

[dafydd manton]

Those of us who are native English speakers stand back in open-mouthed amazement at the sheer, towering literacy of those for whom it is a second language. Frankly, should anyone feel they have the right to criticise, they should take a long, hard look at their motives for contributing to a Forum such as this.

[JCamilo]

Thank you for the flattery, though I have a penchant for unedited, rather ungrammatical sentences, so perhaps my writing is "bad English" as well. As for my arguments, well, hit and miss at most.

Without the online spell-check I would be doomed:goof:... while my grammar or use language... for better or worse... owes much to my penchant for older writers and and their grandiloquence.

Quite frankly, I rarely review anything I write in a internet forum, portuguese, english or scramblish. Considering that I must do it at work all the time, I more than willingly to relax when I am just chatting around. But like JBI, I care little for perfect grammar, perfect spelling, etc. It does not stop or hinder communication, since even the most perfect written sentences can hide something and in the end, everything is a two way road, the listener, must want to list. I will not stop talking with some old lady from a farm, because she does not use a perfect portuguese.

Anyways, yes. Attempts to define the list of canon is bound to fail because the platonic question. It is a more than perfect modern day allegory of the cavern, but since he does not belong to english world, we can understand the slip. Bloom list, which he regrets is obviously not the Canon. The Canon are the books which he worked, had access, guided obviously more by sensibility than an arqueological task. The belief that a list will be correct (or not, since every list can be correct under their specific criteria of that list) is similar of thinking someone holds the key of the gates of Canon Palace. We can only have a feeling of what is canonical (and how many canons literature knows? Iliad and Odissey are Canons after all, they are collected chapters of the most popular versions of Homer put together; even Shakespeare works are somehow a Canon, and of course, Bloom as talking from the point of view of his theory, but we say that a version of a story that is canonized will cloud the others versions in some way). Following lists are not bad, but after while, the good list is the one that like in those faery tales, are telling you to not open the bluebeard door, and you do. So, you got surprised by something good that is out of the list, it happens naturally.

I will be always amazed when people consider that academics will only read what other academics are telling them to do. They are a bunch of opinated arrogant guys, they will build their own lists.

[mal4mac]

Bloom's failing in his Western Canon may have been the manner in which his list suggested something of the final word... an all-inclusive canon...

Bloom is on record as saying that the list was a bad idea. In the book he denies that he has produced an all-inclusive canon, or has the authority to do so:

"A lifetime's reading and rereading can scarcely take one through the Western Canon ... it would mean absorbing well over three thousand books... No one has the authority to tell us what the Western Canon is..." p.37

[JBI]

Bloom is on record as saying that the list was a bad idea. In the book he denies that he has produced an all-inclusive canon, or has the authority to do so:

"A lifetime's reading and rereading can scarcely take one through the Western Canon ... it would mean absorbing well over three thousand books... No one has the authority to tell us what the Western Canon is..." p.37

If you look at his media appearances, such as the one he did on Charlie Rose, at the time of the publication of the text, you will notice he seems to stick by it pretty well.

This abandonment is a new investment as he realized his book is very dated.

[Drkshadow03]

Yes... I agree with the notion of an abstract ideal of a canon that cannot be reduced to a simple list. Bloom's failing in his Western Canon may have been the manner in which his list suggested something of the final word... an all-inclusive canon... when there are certainly an endless array of other great books that might be equally deserving of recognition. Of course any number of other lists come with equally pretentious titles: The Greatest Novels of the Twentieth Century, 100 Books You Should Read Before You Die, The Hundred Greatest Books Ever Written. perhaps David Denby's Great Books is closer to the right direction... the title suggests little more than "Here are 50 or 100 great books... not to suggest that there aren't any number of others that are also 'great'."

Eh, at the same time I also feel like people get irritated about these lists for all the wrong reasons. Lists are useful to a neophyte and even someone with experience reading literature, but who may be inexperienced with a particular culture's literary production.

Let's look at Bloom's list: I think it was JCamillo who complained about Boethius missing from Bloom's list. I complained about the absence of The Last of the Mohicans by James Fenimore Cooper. I think JBI complained about the token inclusion of non-US and British titles in the 20th century, which he wished to be more expansive. However, I think it goes without saying that anything before the 19th century is a pretty decent list of titles representing the Western Canon.

Then you get more specific lists like, "The Greatest Novels of the Twentieth Century" and they receive idiotic complaints:

"Why aren't there any novels from the 1800s like Dostoyevsky? And where is Jane Austen? How can you claim to be representing the Greatest novels? This list sucks!"

"What is with all the novels? Why isn't there any poetry on this list?!"

(one legitimate criticism might be the list is too U.S. and European-centric).

If one understands that they should always add: "in his/her/their opinion" to end of each list, you'll be fine. The Western Canon, in his opinion. The 100 Greatest Novels of 20th Century, in his opinion. A 1001 Books you Must Read Before you Die, in their opinion.

Lists are really just playful bibliographies with a theme to help you find books you might be interested in.

[Jeremydav]

@ OP: Books are described as canonical, not canon. You can purchase a book called "The Western Canon" by Harold Bloom. It's a good read and, whether you agree with his rather conservative view of art, his intelligence is hard to ignore.

[JBI]

Eh, at the same time I also feel like people get irritated about these lists for all the wrong reasons. Lists are useful to a neophyte and even someone with experience reading literature, but who may be inexperienced with a particular culture's literary production.

Let's look at Bloom's list: I think it was JCamillo who complained about Boethius missing from Bloom's list. I complained about the absence of The Last of the Mohicans by James Fenimore Cooper. I think JBI complained about the token inclusion of non-US and British titles in the 20th century, which he wished to be more expansive. However, I think it goes without saying that anything before the 19th century is a pretty decent list of titles representing the Western Canon.

Then you get more specific lists like, "The Greatest Novels of the Twentieth Century" and they receive idiotic complaints:

"Why aren't there any novels from the 1800s like Dostoyevsky? And where is Jane Austen? How can you claim to be representing the Greatest novels? This list sucks!"

"What is with all the novels? Why isn't there any poetry on this list?!"

(one legitimate criticism might be the list is too U.S. and European-centric).

If one understands that they should always add: "in his/her/their opinion" to end of each list, you'll be fine. The Western Canon, in his opinion. The 100 Greatest Novels of 20th Century, in his opinion. A 1001 Books you Must Read Before you Die, in their opinion.

Lists are really just playful bibliographies with a theme to help you find books you might be interested in.

The first half is good from a limited English perspective. But if you take any other language as a standpoint, it ends up being inadequate.

[dafydd manton]

So, Mi Bella, are you any nearer understand what "canon" is?

[JCamilo]

Boethius was not me, Stlukes or Mortal... I think I complained most about south american writers. Anyways, yes, the list is just a list. It is not criticism, unless we are talking about lists as a literary subject.

[Drkshadow03]

Boethius was not me, Stlukes or Mortal... I think I complained most about south american writers. Anyways, yes, the list is just a list. It is not criticism, unless we are talking about lists as a literary subject.

Hmm, I thought it was you for some reason. But apparently it was Etienne: link (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=608812&postcount=24).

[JCamilo]

Yes, It had to be some other of the regular snobish group here :D