Who Decides what is Classical Literature?

[ScribbleScribe]

It's just occured to me that maybe the books and poems we think of as classical are only classical because we've been taught they are classical, so many people have read it and proclaimed it is good because it has the "brand" of being classical and makes them look more sophisticated. Maybe it's nothing more than books we've read in common which are fairly good, rather than excellent books, because I cant help but think there must be some obscure author out there or an author we havent heard of that deserves to have their work immortalized but cant because we've already decided what is classical and what isnt.

For me, what helped me decide what is classic was a list of books my english teacher gave me in 10th grade that were reccomended reading for high school students. Then, googling filled in the rest. But really, I realize I"m going off of what other people are saying, it's like this giant game of telephone which keeps repeating itself over and over again and slightly shifting as time goes on. Lets face it, if someone likes classical literature, most likely they'll like something victorian because it's closer to our time era and they can understand it better than say Beowulf or Shakespeare. Not that these former ones arent good, just that they're harder to read, so less people will read them.

It's all about readability and relatabilty to characters while reading, no matter what you read. Otherwise it's just a historical relic, abeit an important snapshot of a language in transition.

Wow I didn't realize I had that much in my head about Classical Literature. :D

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

While popular opinion and a sort of "word of mouth" does play a large role in what becomes a classic, it mostly deals with the content of whatever work is deemed a classic.

In my observations, there are two main ways a work can become a classic. One is if it breaks the mold and does something completely original (i.e.,Ulysses, Moby Dick, any number of post-modern works [though, post modern works are still too new to be labeled as classics]). The other is if it is just a really good piece of literature that holds up over time and able to be relevant no matter the time period it is read, like Dickens, Twain, and the Russian greats.

There is always a debate as to how important the literary canon is. If only time travel were real, and we could peer into the next 200 years and see what contemporary works had entered the canon.

[Perandorrrr]

"They". I just get upset when an author posthumously gets acclaim while others profit off their work after their death.

[Drkshadow03]

I do. Didn't anyone get that memo?

[JCamilo]

Here, the decision is made by me, JBI, Stlukes, Mortal and that girl who we have in the club so people do not think we gather to play Roleplaying games.
Guess what, Diderot has just rolled a 1 in the dice roll, gues he is not classical anymore...

[PeterL]

The canon of Western Literature exists, because someone thought the various pieces should be on it. While there isn't much disagreement on the works from befor 1800 CE, 19th and 20th century inclusions are rather random. I find it strange the EdwardEverett Hale is not included, but Nathaniel Hawthorn is. The arguements are strong when 20th century novelists are considered.

[laymonite]

Who decides the classical canon for Western Lit? Middle-aged white male professors.

(I am 80% joking, of course.)

[ScribbleScribe]

Here, the decision is made by me, JBI, Stlukes, Mortal and that girl who we have in the club so people do not think we gather to play Roleplaying games.
Guess what, Diderot has just rolled a 1 in the dice roll, gues he is not classical anymore...

This image is hilarious! :smilielol5: I love it!

[ScribbleScribe]

Who decides the classical canon for Western Lit? Middle-aged white male professors.

(I am 80% joking, of course.)

and the other 20% dead serious huh. :D

[ScribbleScribe]

The canon of Western Literature exists, because someone thought the various pieces should be on it. While there isn't much disagreement on the works from befor 1800 CE, 19th and 20th century inclusions are rather random. I find it strange the EdwardEverett Hale is not included, but Nathaniel Hawthorn is. The arguements are strong when 20th century novelists are considered.


I tend to feel like the things in the 19th century which we think of as classical literature, some of them, will fade away over time as human history expands and lengthens. What do you think?

You know, I visited the house which he based The House of Seven Gables off of. Now that was exciting to see! :D I'm such a literature nerd for admitting that was exciting.

I don't like his writing that much to be honest though. I admired the man for shutting himself up for 12 years and reading though. That must've been interesting.

You know i've never heard of the name Edward Everett Hale before. I'm intrigued and wonder who he was.

[ScribbleScribe]

I do. Didn't anyone get that memo?

I didn't get it. You should paste it on my forehead next time. :D

[ScribbleScribe]

In my observations, there are two main ways a work can become a classic. One is if it breaks the mold and does something completely original (i.e.,Ulysses, Moby Dick, any number of post-modern works [though, post modern works are still too new to be labeled as classics]). The other is if it is just a really good piece of literature that holds up over time and able to be relevant no matter the time period it is read, like Dickens, Twain, and the Russian greats.

There is always a debate as to how important the literary canon is. If only time travel were real, and we could peer into the next 200 years and see what contemporary works had entered the canon.

Yes, how important IS it in the sceme of things? I think it is important in the sense that it tells the story of humanity, reveals interpretations of history...it's a part of our psychological make-up I think. Even if things are idealized within novels or pieces of literature, that says something about our inner desires as human beings. It's also fascinating to see how our language (English) can be twisted into different forms (such as poems and short stories). Language is beautiful. Heh, I went off on a tangent didn't I.

To save myself further embarassment, I'll just say that, yes, I think the cannon will change in the next 200 years, but, like yourself, I'm not sure how it will change. That's one of the problems I have with being mortal, I wont be able to see all the fantastic things that humanity gets to do, or the history it'll write, or the new literary genuises that come into being. I wish I was immortal.

You also make me want to study literary movements more because I don't know what post-modernism is. :D

I wish I knew more about literature to say whether or not certain pieces of literature did something entirely different. Alas, I don't know that much to be able to tell when something is pivotal or not, though I enjoy reading up about authors to understand their works better. You must have a good time-line in your head of the progression of English Literature.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Here, the decision is made by me, JBI, Stlukes, Mortal and that girl who we have in the club so people do not think we gather to play Roleplaying games.

A statement made tongue-in-cheek, but nonetheless true :smilielol5:


Who decides the classical canon for Western Lit? Middle-aged white male professors.

(I am 80% joking, of course.)

I think it's more 20-25% joke, haha.


Yes, how important IS it in the sceme of things? I think it is important in the sense that it tells the story of humanity, reveals interpretations of history...it's a part of our psychological make-up I think. Even if things are idealized within novels or pieces of literature, that says something about our inner desires as human beings. It's also fascinating to see how our language (English) can be twisted into different forms (such as poems and short stories). Language is beautiful.

Agree 100%


You also make me want to study literary movements more because I don't know what post-modernism is. :D

Pretty much what came after modernism (which is the time period roughly between WW1 and WWII, give or take a decade-or-more). The first work to always pop in my head is Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five.


You must have a good time-line in your head of the progression of English Literature.

Thanks, but my since of timeline is very basic, and only for English/American lit (and there are some timeline differences between the two, also). It basically goes, starting at around year 1800, Romanticism, Victorian, Modernism, Post-modernism, with many, many sub-categories that I haven't memorized.

[Drkshadow03]

Yes, how important IS it in the sceme of things? I think it is important in the sense that it tells the story of humanity, reveals interpretations of history...it's a part of our psychological make-up I think. Even if things are idealized within novels or pieces of literature, that says something about our inner desires as human beings. It's also fascinating to see how our language (English) can be twisted into different forms (such as poems and short stories). Language is beautiful. Heh, I went off on a tangent didn't I.

To save myself further embarassment, I'll just say that, yes, I think the cannon will change in the next 200 years, but, like yourself, I'm not sure how it will change. That's one of the problems I have with being mortal, I wont be able to see all the fantastic things that humanity gets to do, or the history it'll write, or the new literary genuises that come into being. I wish I was immortal.

You also make me want to study literary movements more because I don't know what post-modernism is. :D

I wish I knew more about literature to say whether or not certain pieces of literature did something entirely different. Alas, I don't know that much to be able to tell when something is pivotal or not, though I enjoy reading up about authors to understand their works better. You must have a good time-line in your head of the progression of English Literature.

You should read this essay (http://www-english.tamu.edu/pers/fac/myers/bogey.html).

[stlukesguild]

Here, the decision is made by me, JBI, Stlukes, Mortal and that girl who we have in the club so people do not think we gather to play Roleplaying games.


Ssssshhhhhh! You weren't supposed to tell anybody about that.:sosp:

[Alexander III]

"To save myself further embarassment, I'll just say that, yes, I think the cannon will change in the next 200 years, but, like yourself, I'm not sure how it will change. That's one of the problems I have with being mortal, I wont be able to see all the fantastic things that humanity gets to do, or the history it'll write, or the new literary genuises that come into being. I wish I was immortal. "

The cannon of 20th and 19th century literature shall undoubtedly be different in 200 years, mostly the 20th century. But before that, it is virtualy set in stone. If every academic in europe were to rise up and deem Boccaccio not of enough aesththic merrit to be included in the cannon, he would nonetheless remain in the cannon, for all the great minds of the last 500 years have deemed him worthy of it, so it would require 500 year of most major intellectuals stating that he is not worthy of the canon to loose his place.

Besides everyone has different opinions

Tolstoy though Shakespeare was crap
Dostoyevsky and Nabokov were in love with Tolstoy, yet Nabokov thought the former was a terrible artist.

Yet Shakespeare and Dostoyevsky are in no risk.

With literature, been around for thousands of years; the opinion of a genial individual or generation, or several generations of genial individuals rarely makes a dent in what we perceive as the canon pre 18th century.

Oh and post-modernisnm is by technicality the movement we are in now, though with things of our time it is always difficult to understand movements and such, that is the future's job to figure out.

[Paulclem]

One effect technology may have is that whereas older books would drop out of print and perhaps fade from view, they are now much more accessible electronically. if things continue as they are, then the canon may just get bigger. They'll all fit onto your kindle.

One example is the gothic novel The castle of Otranto by Walpole, which when i was studying fo my A'levels was mentioned by the teacher. I'd never heard of it, and it was his opinion that it was something no-one would want to read.

This has changed with fashion as I have noted quite a few references to it over the years, and now it would be quite easy to get hold of.

[ScribbleScribe]

You should read this essay (http://www-english.tamu.edu/pers/fac/myers/bogey.html).

Thank you for that! That was quite interesting!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

. Oh and post-modernisnm is by technicality the movement we are in now, though with things of our time it is always difficult to understand movements and such, that is the future's job to figure out.

True, but I think a hunded years down the road, the current period of literature will fall under a different category. But, I'm not very familiar at all with contemporary high literature beyond a few of the key figures, so I could be wrong.

And, literary movements, like many artistic movements, seem to move in a pattern of progression and regression. One period pushes the envelope of what's being done and rebels against the previous period (let's say Romanticism). Then, the next period rebels against that one, paradoxically, by pulling back the "envelope pushing," and reverting to a more "conservative (probably a better word for it) approach (in this case, Victorianism in response to Romanticism). Then we get Modernism, which rebelled against Victorianism. The odd thing is post-modernism doesn't rever to a more conservative approach, but pushes the envelope further. We're due for a regression, and I'm not knowledgable enough of contemporary literature to know whether that is happening or not.

P.S. I use the word "regression" in terms of the experimentation of literature. Of course literature advances in every time period, but not always experimentally.

[Wilde woman]

Who decides the classical canon for Western Lit? Middle-aged white male professors.

(I am 80% joking, of course.)

I don't buy the joke. I think it's true that white male academics have decided the literary canon for a long time, and only recently (perhaps within the last 50 years) has that started to change.


And, literary movements, like many artistic movements, seem to move in a pattern of progression and regression. One period pushes the envelope of what's being done and rebels against the previous period (let's say Romanticism). Then, the next period rebels against that one, paradoxically, by pulling back the "envelope pushing," and reverting to a more "conservative (probably a better word for it) approach (in this case, Victorianism in response to Romanticism). Then we get Modernism, which rebelled against Victorianism. The odd thing is post-modernism doesn't rever to a more conservative approach, but pushes the envelope further. We're due for a regression, and I'm not knowledgable enough of contemporary literature to know whether that is happening or not.

That sounds rather Kantian. Is there a synthesis stage?

And I'm not certain I agree with this progression-regression thing in regards to modernism and post-modernism. These periods are not my specialty, but I've always seen modernism's major breakthroughs as structural, very much moving away from linear narratives and trustworthy narrators. On the other hand, I've always seen post-modernism as a move away from essentialism (questioning the nature of truth itself) and a focus on meta-everything. For me (and again, I'm no expert), modernist literature focused on structure while post-modernism was concerned more with content-based than structural changes. Are we still in the post-modernist stage? (I've heard some say we've moved beyond it.) And, if not, has anyone heard of a term to label our current movement?

[mortalterror]

I am the law!

[Patrick_Bateman]

I think time is the biggest decider as to whether a work becomes a 'classic'.

Not just the time that passes after it's publication but also the time and environment it was written in.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That sounds rather Kantian. Is there a synthesis stage?

And I'm not certain I agree with this progression-regression thing in regards to modernism and post-modernism. These periods are not my specialty, but I've always seen modernism's major breakthroughs as structural, very much moving away from linear narratives and trustworthy narrators. On the other hand, I've always seen post-modernism as a move away from essentialism (questioning the nature of truth itself) and a focus on meta-everything. For me (and again, I'm no expert), modernist literature focused on structure while post-modernism was concerned more with content-based than structural changes. Are we still in the post-modernist stage? (I've heard some say we've moved beyond it.) And, if not, has anyone heard of a term to label our current movement?

Well, when I think post-modern, I think of books like Slaughterhouse-Fivem, so that always makes me think of screwy structure. And, I could be completely wrong.

And, forgive my ignorance, but was does "Kantian" mean?

[laymonite]

Immanuel Kant, see "synthetic a priori"

[TacoButt]

In music, there is a book called the "Lexicon of Musical Invective" which is a fascinating collection of articles published by critics who hated works we now regard as classic.

It has things in there like published reviews of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony comparing it to cats fighting, etc.

It makes me wonder...what is the role of the critic (more middle-aged white guys) in ascertaining what is good art and that art's longevity?

I assume that the critics eventually get their act together and come to a "good academic consensus" after the reactionary dust settles. But who are they taking their lead from? The market? Who proves the critics wrong?

[Alexander III]

In music, there is a book called the "Lexicon of Musical Invective" which is a fascinating collection of articles published by critics who hated works we now regard as classic.

It has things in there like published reviews of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony comparing it to cats fighting, etc.

It makes me wonder...what is the role of the critic (more middle-aged white guys) in ascertaining what is good art and that art's longevity?

I assume that the critics eventually get their act together and come to a "good academic consensus" after the reactionary dust settles. But who are they taking their lead from? The market? Who proves the critics wrong?

The problem is, mostly, when the artist uses revolutionary techniques. The critics of his time, are exactly that of his time. They judge it by the standards of their time and thus since they can't comprehend it, they deem it bad. Only the future generations shall be able to recognize it's genius as the artist was ahead of his times, so in order to be recognized he need the times to catch up to him. An example of this would be Rimbaud, Keats, Baudelaire, Poe, Euripides, and many more.

Another problem is that in the past societies moral values were by default attached to the criticism. Therefore books of great aesthetic value which did not agree with the morality of the times were judged as bad books. Fortunately in this century we have largely moved away from that, though the problem does still persist.

So I do believe that blaming the critics for not recognizing the genius of their own times is harsh, for it is a virtually impossible task. If you were to ask the major writers and academics of our times, who they deem to be the top 20 writers in the last 50 years. The list would be entirely different to one 200 years from now; as nothing is harder to judge than the present.

[B. Laumness]

I'd reformulate the question: what is aesthetic judgment, and who can make such a judgment?



And, forgive my ignorance, but was does "Kantian" mean?

Don't tell us that you, future teacher, have never heard of Kant.

[TacoButt]

So I do believe that blaming the critics for not recognizing the genius of their own times is harsh, for it is a virtually impossible task.

If they have an impossible task, then what IS their role in literature? The function of the critic is something I only quite dimly understand.

[B. Laumness]

They have no role in the process of writing. Each work contains its own poetics. Their role is to understand the work, but this reading remains an interpretation, however scientific it may be.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If they have an impossible task, then what IS their role in literature? The function of the critic is something I only quite dimly understand.

I just saw an article from the New York Times that addresses this very question.

From the NYT title: "The Book Review recently asked six accomplished critics to explain what it is they do, why they do it and why it is important."

Here's the link (a better one thanks to ScribbleScribe):http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/bo...html?ref=books)

You can find the articles about half-way down the page in the left column. I didn't link each article because you have to register with NYT to view it, which is very easy.

[TacoButt]

I just saw an article from the New York Times that addresses this very question.

From the NYT title: "The Book Review recently asked six accomplished critics to explain what it is they do, why they do it and why it is important."



Interesting, thanks. Do the critics say that the role of critics is critical?

[ScribbleScribe]

.,,,,

[ScribbleScribe]

I just saw an article from the New York Times that addresses this very question.

From the NYT title: "The Book Review recently asked six accomplished critics to explain what it is they do, why they do it and why it is important."

Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/index.html

You can find the articles about half-way down the page in the left column. I didn't link each article because you have to register with NYT to view it, which is very easy.

That's just a general link to the book section. Can you give us the specific link to the article?

Nevermind I found it: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/books/review/Tanenhaus-t.html?ref=books

[JCamilo]

Oh, the critics do not matter either. They are not those who build the canon, which is an accidental thing, not guided by anyone, but by tradition, whcih is that same thing that make people wear pants in public.

[Drkshadow03]

Oh, the critics do not matter either. They are not those who build the canon, which is an accidental thing, not guided by anyone, but by tradition, whcih is that same thing that make people wear pants in public.

Pants are overrated.

[IceM]

The authors determine what is classical and what is not. Traditionally the most celebrated of authors have an innate brilliance, an ability to weave numerous layers of complexity to provide some eternal insight into the human experience, whether that experience is commonplace or unlikely. Aesthetic value is often appreciable, yet not necessary; Moby Dick is one of the most lauded novels ever, yet is an eyesore to read, while Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man has a much more beautiful aesthetic (in my eyes) yet is less heralded.

Of course, this opens me up to the if-aesthetic-matters-then-Dan-Brown-is-canonical argument. Not true. Canonical, classical literature, as mentioned before, deals with some fragment of the human experience and presents both universal wisdom and a universal, tangible experience through the aforementioned events. Not everybody hunted Moby Dick but most can feel a tangible desire to succeed in Ahab's stubborness; similarly, not everyone can relate to being a forest-dwelling ascetic, but almost any reader can find joy in Siddhartha's moment of understanding. Good literature appeases the mind, great literature develops it, legendary literature expands it.

[TacoButt]

Pants are overrated.

Ah! A critic.

[stlukesguild]

The authors determine what is classical and what is not.

Not merely authors. There are probably few authors reading Roman essayists anymore. The "Canon" or classic status is determined by a combination of all those who put forth the greatest effort in reading, understanding, discussing, promoting, preserving, and perpetuating literature. In other words, the canon is determined by such "experts" as critics, historians, and professors... but also by subsequent generations of readers and writers. Finnegan's Wake's status as a classic owes most to critics and professors and to a lesser extent to subsequent writers... in spite of it being largely inaccessible to most readers. )n the other hand, Dumas' Three Musketeers and Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes retain their status as classics largely as a result of the readers.

[Seasider]

This question makes me think of The Dunciad, Pope's great satire on many of his contemporaries. The ironical thing is that Pope spent a lot of time and effort demonstrating how dull and inferior these writers were and yet in doing so he immortalised them far beyond their deserts.
Had it not been for Pope the "dunces" as he described them like Shadwell, Settle, Quarles, Theobald and Cibber would in all likelihood have sunk without trace.
As someone once said "Any publicity is good publicity."

[IceM]

The authors determine what is classical and what is not.

Not merely authors. There are probably few authors reading Roman essayists anymore. The "Canon" or classic status is determined by a combination of all those who put forth the greatest effort in reading, understanding, discussing, promoting, preserving, and perpetuating literature. In other words, the canon is determined by such "experts" as critics, historians, and professors... but also by subsequent generations of readers and writers. Finnegan's Wake's status as a classic owes most to critics and professors and to a lesser extent to subsequent writers... in spite of it being largely inaccessible to most readers. )n the other hand, Dumas' Three Musketeers and Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes retain their status as classics largely as a result of the readers.

I agree with a lot of what is said, and when I meant that authors decided what is canonical I meant not a collective body but instead the lone author crafting his or her own work through their dedication to the craft. Of course, you're right to say that critics, readers and other professionals help determine what is and what is not canonical, for one needs experts to help highlight the underlying brilliance that may be present in novels far too complex for the common reader. In that regard, I agree. I just think the author is the greatest determinant of success. One must possess the skill necessary to produce canonical works. Critics cannot ascribe to authors talents that the authors don't already possess. The critics and reviews of great works are just supplementary. Moby Dick would still be canonical even without critics, although the critics certainly comment on the brilliance within. However, for authors with less talent like Vonnegut and Anaya, a great review of any of their works cannot substitute for structural and/or stylistic shortcomings that may be present.

[TacoButt]

However, for authors with less talent like Vonnegut and Anaya, a great review of any of their works cannot substitute for structural and/or stylistic shortcomings that may be present.

Aren't there examples of inferior works that make it into the canon? In the preface to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (written many years after initial publication), Pirsig describes his own book's inclusion into the world of "the great american novel" and states that the literary merit is, in and of itself not the greatest example of writing in the world.

He points out that Uncle Tom's Cabin was also no literary masterpiece, but it resonated with those contemporary audiences at the time it hit the bookstands. He points out that what often gets nominated for inclusion into the canon of "classic literature" is something that captures the spirit of the culture's particular time and place.

My wife and I this morning were talking about Dinah Shore. She suddenly came into my studio and said, "Why was Dinah Shore so great?" We discussed the possibility that she sort of represented a post-war feminine ideal...homemaker, modern, accomplished, knows she can rivet if she has to, and talented. She captured something that was, at the time, marketable. Although, now she seems sort of dowdy and common.

If one buys into the idea that people, music, films, literature can make it into the classic canon by virtue of its imbuing of social archetypes, then the next question might be, "What keeps great literature buoyant over time?"

Maybe some of the classic literature hangs around only because it is forced down the gullets of 9th graders?

[IceM]

Aren't there examples of inferior works that make it into the canon? In the preface to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (written many years after initial publication), Pirsig describes his own book's inclusion into the world of "the great american novel" and states that the literary merit is, in and of itself not the greatest example of writing in the world.

He points out that Uncle Tom's Cabin was also no literary masterpiece, but it resonated with those contemporary audiences at the time it hit the bookstands. He points out that what often gets nominated for inclusion into the canon of "classic literature" is something that captures the spirit of the culture's particular time and place.
My wife and I this morning were talking about Dinah Shore. She suddenly came into my studio and said, "Why was Dinah Shore so great?" We discussed the possibility that she sort of represented a post-war feminine ideal...homemaker, modern, accomplished, knows she can rivet if she has to, and talented. She captured something that was, at the time, marketable. Although, now she seems sort of dowdy and common.

If one buys into the idea that people, music, films, literature can make it into the classic canon by virtue of its imbuing of social archetypes, then the next question might be, "What keeps great literature buoyant over time?"
Maybe some of the classic literature hangs around only because it is forced down the gullets of 9th graders?

I alluded to these two points in my first post. I feel that canonical literature addresses a universal aspect of the human experience, which provides universal wisdom that augments the mind. I have yet to read Uncle Tom's Cabin, but because I know the political implications it had, I'm sure the apparent lack of aesthetic was glossed over by the wisdom and relevance of the message. Like I said, most canonical literature is universal in scope.

This may be the case with lesser works that contain a supreme wisdom, yet lacked the ultimate means of expressing them.

[Seasider]

ace.

My wife and I this morning were talking about Dinah Shore. She suddenly came into my studio and said, "Why was Dinah Shore so great?" We discussed the possibility that she sort of represented a post-war feminine ideal...homemaker, modern, accomplished, knows she can rivet if she has to, and talented. She captured something that was, at the time, marketable. Although, now she seems sort of dowdy and common.

In this case , and its modern equivalents,there were, and still are people in the entertainment industry whose role is to identify upcoming trends and pick out and promote those whom they think are "marketable"...who will go on and make a lot of money for their agents and the companies involved. At least as long as the fashion lasts. They are promoted not because of their talent but because of their popular appeal. Though I do think that Dinah Shore had talent, there are many like Sandy Shaw, Cilla Black, Marianne Faithfull et al who got by because they simply suited the 60s Zeitgeist. (Dons hard hat!)

Publishers are in the same business. Sales are the bottom line these days, though there probably are some who will take a loss and bear it to give the company a bit of prestige. All these ghosted celeb biogs, which make so much money and are trivial and meretricious. Yuk.

[TacoButt]

Publishers are in the same business. Sales are the bottom line these days, though there probably are some who will take a loss and bear it to give the company a bit of prestige. All these ghosted celeb biogs, which make so much money and are trivial and meretricious. Yuk.

Great comments and I agree with you! :smilielol5:

I might have accidently derailed my own point by bringing up marketability though. The "culture bearing" aspect of literature should be distinguished from the commodity nature of the contemporary publishing and entertainment industry.

What I was trying to illustrate is that sometimes the classics "float up" on their own, not due to any literary genius on behalf of the author, (nor due to marketing campaigns) but more because they contain the sentiment of a large portion of the culture of the time.

However, I'd like to believe that most of the classics are so because they are misunderstood during their own time, but were slowly "discovered" to have vision, great quality and universality.

[Alexander III]

Publishers are in the same business. Sales are the bottom line these days, though there probably are some who will take a loss and bear it to give the company a bit of prestige. All these ghosted celeb biogs, which make so much money and are trivial and meretricious. Yuk.

Actually book sales are utterly fantastic now, no idea what would give you the impression off the opposite

[Sulla]

In general, whoever is in power decides what is Classic or not. Meaning, the populous with the most power is the one who is going to buy this book or that book.

A writer like James Joyce would've been less accepted 50 years ago than now, of course. I do see Joyce in a lot of cannons these days. Culture has changed and so has the view of art.

Likewise authors from non-English speaking countries have been given proper due in the last twenty years or so and more and more as time goes on. Power structures have changed and is much more diverse than it used to be.

[JCamilo]

Uncle tom is not a canon safe work. It is actually vanishing and didn't got the world wide influence necessary to be safe there. It has historical importance, but works who just have the historical aspect, eventually are lost and I believe it will happen even now.

No work of the last 100 years is safe either, even top names like Joyce, Borges, Neruda, Kafka, Yeats may drop their significance, specially if the next generations cannt keep them alive. It is a hard bet however.

As inferior works, depends how open your canon is, of course books inferior to the Comedy will be there, but they are superior to the majority of works. The canon is by no means a ranking, more like an imperfect creature loaming over.

[JCamilo]

In general, whoever is in power decides what is Classic or not. Meaning, the populous with the most power is the one who is going to buy this book or that book.

No, it is not. Voltaire was perhaps the most powerful thinker of his century and tried to put down both Dante and Shakespeare. Nothing changed the status of both. Some writers never get into the power also.

Once the status of classic is attained, it is almost impossible to lose. Of course, I do not mean instantly classics, but real classics.

[stlukesguild]

Aren't there examples of inferior works that make it into the canon?

...Uncle Tom's Cabin was... no literary masterpiece, but it resonated with those contemporary audiences at the time it hit the bookstands.

The notion of a contemporary classic is somewhat absurd. For any art work to attain "classic" status it must survive for more than a generation and continue to resonate with readers, writers, and scholars. I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that Uncle Tom's Cabin was a "classic" work of literature. It is an important historical document and an influential book... but its influence (once we get beyond the era in which it was written) is primarily political and historical... not literary.

To address the initial question... are there inferior works that make it into the canon? Certainly there are minor classics. In comparison to Dante, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Homer, Cervantes, and Milton almost any other writer IS inferior. Are there classics that are actually "bad" literature? That is always debatable. There are certainly works that have been deemed as "classics" that I dislike, and I assume this is true of everyone... but a work of literature is not defined as a "classic" unless it is believed to have been an important work as literature... an important work to literature.

[stlukesguild]

In general, whoever is in power decides what is Classic or not. Meaning, the populous with the most power is the one who is going to buy this book or that book.

A writer like James Joyce would've been less accepted 50 years ago than now, of course. I do see Joyce in a lot of cannons these days. Culture has changed and so has the view of art.

Likewise authors from non-English speaking countries have been given proper due in the last twenty years or so and more and more as time goes on. Power structures have changed and is much more diverse than it used to be.

Somebody's been reading the critics from Harold Bloom's "school of resentment" again.:hand: So how is it that a middle-class writer for the theater who quite probably was bisexual was chosen as the greatest writer in English... if not the entire Western Civilization? How is it that his only true rival would be a man who challenged the powers-that-be (the church and the state) and who in a heretical manner re-imagined the entire afterlife in his own ideal? How is it that the artist acknowledged by most as the greatest in painter and sculptor of Western Art could be an acknowledged homosexual who paintings on the ceiling of the private chapel of the Popes bespoke of his own sexual fantasies and frustrations? Social forces don't decide what is or is not a classic. Power certainly affords the wealth needed to support the arts and promote the arts, but the art which survives and attains "classic" status is decided upon by those who put forth the greatest effort toward understanding, appreciating, promoting, preserving, and perpetuating the arts: the art experts (scholars, critics, academics, professionals), the subsequent artists (writers, poets, painters, composers, etc...) and art lovers (readers, listeners, art collectors, etc...)

[JCamilo]

The comforting to know that people in power since classical greece still in power until today. Make us feel guarded by holy angels :D

[TacoButt]

.. but a work of literature is not defined as a "classic" unless it is believed to have been an important work as literature... an important work to literature.

Important meaning influential? Or as in historically significant? Doesn't timeless quality or universality have something to do with it? Or does "important" capture these properties as well?

[mortalterror]

Once the status of classic is attained, it is almost impossible to lose. Of course, I do not mean instantly classics, but real classics.

If we can lose the works of Homer and Aeschylus, or the epics Gilgamesh and Beowulf then nobody is safe and nothing is forever.

[JCamilo]

They would still be classics. We do not even need to read them anymore. Even Sapho is safe and we read just part of it. Anyways, nothing is foverer, even the meaning of classics may be lost.

[Seasider]

Actually book sales are utterly fantastic now, no idea what would give you the impression off the opposite

My use of the phrase the bottom line was to describe the crucial factor after everything else is allowed for. Literally it's the line you probably read first when looking at the state of your accounts as it represents your net profit.

I meant that sales or prospective sales is the most important determinant of whether a book is published, probably overriding quality and pedigree. That I suggest is why Lady Gaga (substitute celeb of choice) is likely to get published and I, and thousands like me, are not.