Question: What type of influence matters in a canon?

Personally, I also don't think Shakespeare is really imitated much...

Seriously? You really don't see all the writers after Shakespeare who were profoundly impacted by his work: Milton, Goethe, Schiller, Victor Hugo, Shelley, Blake, Proust, Joyce, Beckett, J.L. Borges, Melville, Cormac McCarthy, etc... These just scrape the surface. It should be pointed out that being influenced by another artist doesn't necessarily in work that is clearly derivative. Shakespeare and the King James Bible are the two towering sources of literature in the English language.

JBI, i agree, works are famous due to their appeal. Not because they are true. Darwin had appeal. Not aesthetical of course (he was lousy even for scientific academic standard), but his defensors are good. They increased his appeal. Sometimes good scientific theories are not popular, they do not provoke any appeal.

But then, I do not think appeal is the only factor for canonization. Antithesis too. Works who are combated, burned down, and return are part of this process.

But I think Columbus letter is read due the canonical status. Their readers are more likely history students and they read it after historical evidence, experience, etc. A reason why the work was canonized.

A canon matters most because there are too many works to read and one cannot read all of them. And ultimately, professional critics are needed in forming that canon.

Quality work is second to readership. Always. Mostly because quality work is done by readership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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.

---

It's just an ironic rant.

Take for instance a concept of world literature, and then narrow your focus to the American academies, and you get that. A population obsessed with its own literature, which is predominantly male, and white.

English people did it worse, and English literature was canonized for the Indian people to read and study whiteness, to be emulated. The tradition as a whole is generally more male dominated than other traditions, and that is why in English, as well as to a lesser extent in other European traditions we see a presence of women using male names to get published, all the way through the Brontes and George Eliot.

In contrast, you take sociological frameworks and traditions such as the culture of Ancient China, and you see that in poetic representation, women generally were always there - from Confucius downward. Strangely enough, Chinese culture was far more misogynistic than anything Western chauvinist pigs cooked cook up, to the point where the educated, rich aristocratic women - the top of the totem poll - by the Qing dynasty were not even allowed outside, so they could just sit in their father or husband's home fighting with the other wives or concubines, though not running far since their feet were severely mutilated. Still, there are many great Chinese female authors, and many great imitators of female voice and tropes even amoungst male authors.


The Japanese canon in contrast is loaded with excellent female voice, especially in the early days, though Japan didn't really turn particularly misogynist until the Mongol invasion - women on the highest end were more or less equal during the Kamakura period, with the ability to inherit lands equal to those of their male counterparts, and power in politics granted (the second major Shogun after all was female). IF education is the question, Japanese men didn't pick up on literacy as quickly as women - Women had the benefit of "women's script" that is, indigenous writing of Japan thought too unscholarly for the male aristocrats, and therefore set the stage of the bulk of the canon when their male counterparts failed to figure out Chinese properly and then later switched over.


Now lets take a third, shorter tradition of literature - that of Canada. In general I would say something like 75% of an imagined canon would be female authors, and of that probably 70% or more are minority or marginalized peoples. That canon doesn't seem to really be too misogynist or racist.

But no, an American academy just dilutes itself with ranting how there aren't enough female Americans in the American canon, or African Americans in the American canon and forces this weird warped view of literary history onto the world. Ok, Americans are misogynist bigots - that's the message they are telling me. That doesn't mean I have an association with it, and that doesn't mean I am a male chauvinist pig because of it, or racist.

Simply put, one tradition's dark history is not relevant to the entire world tradition - one country's insecurity and inner conflict is not the entire world canon. The resentment stems from American culture clashes, and to a lesser extent English culture clashes, not from, for instance, Canadian presence.

It's ironic that you'll find at every given moment thousands of academics digging archives and libraries searching for female authors and misogyny in American letters. If these people were so righteous in their promotion of unheard of female authors why can't they just pick up a Canadian novel? Not American enough? not English enough for these scholars' British counterparts?

Hell, I would say that the Canadian canon beats the American canon just by being from Canada.

There has to be a law against firing canons across international borders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

JBI, i agree, works are famous due to their appeal. Not because they are true. Darwin had appeal. Not aesthetical of course (he was lousy even for scientific academic standard), but his defensors are good. They increased his appeal. Sometimes good scientific theories are not popular, they do not provoke any appeal.

But then, I do not think appeal is the only factor for canonization. Antithesis too. Works who are combated, burned down, and return are part of this process.

But I think Columbus letter is read due the canonical status. Their readers are more likely history students and they read it after historical evidence, experience, etc. A reason why the work was canonized.

---

I tend to agree here that appeal is definitely a factor initially, and maybe for longer. But once it is canonized somewhat, it almost does not matter (or not matter) as much that it is no longer appealing to even majority of readers), but held dear by a group of caretakers (like modern academics). I am a little bit more familiar with the situation in history - I've read that in most universities there would be a professorship for classical Greek history, but in the western world (at least, in Europe and US together), there was just one professorship devoted to history of the Persian Empire. Well, which empire had more people or controlled more land then? Clearly the Persians. By why the focus on Greek history? It is probably the institution feeding on itself.

All this is to say that the fundamental appeal - while needed somewhat for sure, might not explain the whole story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

[COLOR="DarkRed"]
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?

---

I think we might need to think a bit more here ... Asians actually are numerically much stronger than Europe ... and just Chinese (if you consider them Asians) have printing just about 500 years longer than Europe, with being literate as pretty much to get to the most coveted career path of being a literati-bureaucrat. Just based on a general sense of history, I am pretty sure Europe can at best match Chinese in number of literate / educated folks in 18th century, thus, it would be a pretty good guess that Europe in the 19th would have at best as many educted population as the rest of the world added together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawpark

I tend to agree here that appeal is definitely a factor initially, and maybe for longer. But once it is canonized somewhat, it almost does not matter (or not matter) as much that it is no longer appealing to even majority of readers), but held dear by a group of caretakers (like modern academics). I am a little bit more familiar with the situation in history - I've read that in most universities there would be a professorship for classical Greek history, but in the western world (at least, in Europe and US together), there was just one professorship devoted to history of the Persian Empire. Well, which empire had more people or controlled more land then? Clearly the Persians. By why the focus on Greek history? It is probably the institution feeding on itself.

All this is to say that the fundamental appeal - while needed somewhat for sure, might not explain the whole story.

---

That is quite easy (even if half of greek classics are about the Persians are coming): Greeks have more appeal. Even to the persians who loved to be conquered by Alexander. Dont forget, those institutions were not even born and egyptians are preserving greeks better than greeks themselves.

Anyways, I would say appeal still matters once or while. One of the canonized authors that almost can match Homer is Aesop. In fact, Fables and alike never went out of fashion. They were never the prime form of narrative, but they never faded like Epics narrative poems did. The basic ideas still the same. Why? The appealing of simplicity of narrative, moral allegories, etc. are strong that we keep using fables at daily basis. They are still written and read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junglord

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.

---

Utter nonsense.
StLukes dealt with your post better than I could, but it would be wise to actually research history a little better rather than swallow whatever you would like to believe. You'll see that there is great diversity in influential writers worldwide throughout history and that, whilst there isn't as many writers from minorities (though quite a lot still exist as stlukes and history will tell you), there are indeed logical reasons for it. But they do still exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

That is quite easy (even if half of greek classics are about the Persians are coming): Greeks have more appeal. Even to the persians who loved to be conquered by Alexander. Dont forget, those institutions were not even born and egyptians are preserving greeks better than greeks themselves.

Anyways, I would say appeal still matters once or while. One of the canonized authors that almost can match Homer is Aesop. In fact, Fables and alike never went out of fashion. They were never the prime form of narrative, but they never faded like Epics narrative poems did. The basic ideas still the same. Why? The appealing of simplicity of narrative, moral allegories, etc. are strong that we keep using fables at daily basis. They are still written and read.

---

The Greeks ruled Egypt during the Ptolemies for something like 250 years ... Greek definitely has more literary works than Persia - but about the political situation itself? People like studying the small wars or the alliance among the Greek cities more than the Persian Empire, that is hard to understand.

Persians ruled their conquered land for 200 years. Alexander? Take that aside, even Seleucids are much underrated vs. Alexander - sheerly because of prestige rather than real achievement in establishing rule.

Aesop has appeal, but do people read Pancantra (sic? I am not even sure I can spell it correctly!) from India? Same type of stuff presumably, but I definitely have heard more about Aesop since growing up than the Indian versions.

Well, Alexander has appeal. It is not how long he lived and of course, persian kings had appeal too (like I said we have dramas about the persian-greece wars, we have Xenophon, we have Herodothus who dealt with the matter), but Alexander rule, small as it is, was the prototype of rome. Plus his style of conquest grant him the welcoming in the conquered countries, so his culture can be imposed there.

Many people read Panchartantra(albeit the same type of stuff is more or less true, the tales of Panchartantra are somehow more long, more like the greatmother of 1001 nights, albeit of course, most people reckonize some links with Aesop) but of course, most of them are in India. But Aesop appeal is not hard to reckonize, the very aspect unity of effect, etc from modern short stories are there. They are stuff you can tell to someone in a casual meeting.

It is truly baffling how and why Alexander has had so much appeal ... more than Cyrus (who has good press since Herodotus' time), more than Seleucius / Antiochus (the true folks that allow Greek to have any influence in the core part of the old Persian empire), and more than Genghis Khan (clearly larger realm of conquest, and empire sustained much longer). Maybe because Alexander rode on the back of classical Greek culture? But part of Greek's appeal was because of Alexander? ... something about appeal / esteem / influence / canonicity is still not making sense to me ...

Alexander is more a forefather of Rome than any of those. That is why, altough Cyrus still with big appeal.