But this model may not explain texts like Quran.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heteronym
Printable View
But this model may not explain texts like Quran.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heteronym
It's not a work of literature. It's a religious scripture. I thought were discussing a literary canon.
I quoted directly from the translation. Not my translation so I cannot say why that was done, I assume for effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by lawpark
Seven-character-regular-verse
Li Shangyin
TO ONE UNNAMED IV
A faint phoenix-tail gauze, fragrant and doubled,
Lines your green canopy, closed for the night....
Will your shy face peer round a moon-shaped fan,
And your voice be heard hushing the rattle of my carriage?
It is quiet and quiet where your gold lamp dies,
How far can a pomegranate-blossom whisper?
...I will tether my horse to a river willow
And wait for the will of the southwest wind.
The forum staff pleasantly informed me that Chinese language signatures were not in keeping with forum rules, so I used the translation I could find in the public domain.
As for the equation, both influence and canonization come from the same place, esteem, but influence does not lead to canonization necessarily. For instance, Influence <---- Esteem ---->canonization, not your way around by my estimate.
It all depends on how white, middle-class and male the writers are.
Or how Chinese, or how anything. The Chinese Canon seems more ethnocentric then, for instance, the so called Western one, and we don't hear anyone calling Chinese readers bigots now do we? Then again, it all comes back to esteem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junglord
But most canon includes Bible, and Bloom's one includes Quran. Historical work-wise, Herodotus and al-Tabari were really not imitated afterwards. Nor (as far as I understand) Shanameh imitated later on (I could be wrong here)? It sounded to me the "imitation" and "anxiety of influence" mostly happens in the Western Epic realm of literature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heteronym
Personally, I also don't think Shakespeare is really imitated much, unless you take the Harold Bloom's view that Shakespeare invented humanity and thus everyone writing about humans are struggling with Shakespeare ...
Nice to know about the signature part - at least you got the author's name in Chinese there, otherwise I would never have found out which poems it was ...Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
In your "formula", it makes me feel that esteem is almost synonymous as being canonized ... is it a tautology or is it really not?
St. Augustine might not have been white ... most authors that are famous now were probably upper-class, and Jane Austen was clearly ... female, I hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junglord
If George Eliot can be female, who knows? Maybe Jake Austen liked writing girly novels but didn't want his buddies to make fun of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by lawpark
Good point, possibly the canon includes authors who are transgender ... just possibly
Of course the Quran is a work of literature. And of course, several writers liked it and used it as reference afterwards. Anyways...Quote:
Originally Posted by lawpark
Herodotus was widely imitated. The Chronicles format - a prose format for accounts that are historical - is the model of history until today. Not to mention you can find some of his stories even in Brother Grimms (the ring of Policrates became a faery tale, for example).
Anyways, imitation only in western? How so? If that was true, the poetic formats developed on east would not became a model. And you even have for example, modern japanese literature which is build upon the "imitation" or "no imitation" of western models. I am pretty sure Confucio was widely imitated, fables like Pachahantra (may have spelled wrongly) spread, parables styles that are in every culture, etc.
Now, Anxiety of influence... You have to assume this happens somewhere first...
As Shakespeare, he is of course copied. First, the Shakespeare canon is a result of imitation, we do not have really access to all Shakespeare original works, but how they were collected after his death. People still quote him daily. He changed structure of drama. Several romantic poets used his verses. How many versions of Romeo and Juliet do you know? Heck, even Agatha Christie to kill Hercule Poirot imitated Iago.
To look to the top of the Western Philosophical canon, take Plato.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Do the Gods like something because it is good, or is something good because the Gods like it?
Is something influential because it is good, and therefore canonized, or is it canonized and good because it is influential?
You see my problem - the discussion usually comes from a major problem when dealing with the two notions, canonical works in general are influential because they are esteemed, and therefore canonized, not the other way around.
People read Homer, or listened to him, there were other bards, but he took, his poems were loved, and so were influential, he became canonical because those around him admired him.
Sophocles was one of many playwrights. His reputation comes from people loving his work - agon is the force behind canonization of course, but influence wasn't what made him win, the quality of the work was - he was held in high regard by the judges, and so won. He became a name, earned a reputation, and so, people judged him a good model to copy.
Columbus wrote a letter telling the Queen he found land - huge influence, how many people read that as canonical literature?
Likewise, Christopher Smart wrote Jubilate Agno which was first published in the 20th century - his poem is canonical because contemporary critics value it, not because it was imitated or influential - it really wasn't, until it somehow, almost by accident, made it into the English canon.
Do the Gods like something because it is good, or is something good because the Gods like it?
Is something influential because it is good, and therefore canonized, or is it canonized and good because it is influential?
You see my problem - the discussion usually comes from a major problem when dealing with the two notions, canonical works in general are influential because they are esteemed, and therefore canonized, not the other way around.
Sophocles was one of many playwrights. His reputation comes from people loving his work - agon is the force behind canonization of course, but influence wasn't what made him win, the quality of the work was - he was held in high regard by the judges, and so won. He became a name, earned a reputation, and so, people judged him a good model to copy.
Columbus wrote a letter telling the Queen he found land - huge influence, how many people read that as canonical literature?
Likewise, Christopher Smart wrote Jubilate Agno which was first published in the 20th century - his poem is canonical because contemporary critics value it, not because it was imitated or influential - it really wasn't, until it somehow, almost by accident, made it into the English canon.
Bingo!:thumbsup:
Vermeer is a "canonical" painter... one of the greatest of the Dutch "golden age"... in spite of the fact that he was largely ignored until the late 19th/early 20th century
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6016/...4dd1b70a5d.jpg
Cezanne is not a great artist because of his influence on Picasso and Cubism... although that may explain why he figures more within the art history texts than Bonnard or Vuillard. Cezanne is a great artist because he made more than a few damn good paintings.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6001/...452dba5f_b.jpg
Well it looks like I ignorantly assumed we were talking about the western canon. Niether the less all the people deemed within the Western literary canon are Male, white and upper/middle-class. It's just a fact, and that shows the majority's shallow, prejudice hearts inlight of literature.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Niether the less all the people deemed within the Western literary canon are Male, white and upper/middle-class.
Sappho
Emily Dickinson
Emily Bronte
Charlotte Bronte
Jane Austen
Marina Tsvetaeva
Anna Akhmatova
Marguerite Duras
Ingebourg Bachmann
Elizabeth Bishop
Elizabeth Barrett Browning
Toni Morrisoin
Marianne Moore
George Eliot
George Sand
Elizabeth Gaskell
Mary Shelley
As for race... let's use our brains here. Exactly how many educated Blacks or Asians are we to imagine lived in the West (Europe) prior to the 20th century?
America doesn't even enter the Western Canon until the 19th century and one can't imagine many slaves having the free time to write books... nor many African-Americans after slavery having the education needed.
Even so... we do have Alexandre Dumas and Alexander Pushkin... and certainly check out Joaquim Maria Machado de Assis.
As for class... writers came from all over the social spectrum. You have authors like Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Edmund Spenser, Dante who were born of the aristocracy or socio/political/economic elite. You have other writers like William Blake, César Vallejo, Jean Genet, Arthur Rimbaud, Charles Baudelaire, etc... who were born poor and/or spent much of their careers in poverty.
Of course the majority of the writers were probably middle-class for the simple reason that the majority of the population is middle class.
It's just a fact, and that shows the majority's shallow, prejudice hearts inlight of literature.
Let me guess... you're in PC class 101? How does the fact that the literature of the predominantly white West (Europe... and later the Americas), in which women and non-whites were not afforded equal education until recently, is as a result predominantly written by white male writers tell us anything about the majority's shallow prejudice? It would seem that your negation of literature outside of the Western Canon, which is becoming increasingly absorbed by Western readers, would be more prejudiced than the fact that there aren't more black writers in the Western Canon when there simply weren't more black writers period.