The other "Canon"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Here's my question though - do you consider Canada part of the Western tradition - I personally don't consider contemporary Canadian work part of the West - Atwood is clearly Western, but I don't see anything particularly Western About Alice Munro for example. It seems the bulk of Canadian authors are generally either building on the Canadian mythology (the themes, essentially minus the biblical and cartological ones of Frye and Atwood), various indigenous motifs, and ultimately various other ethnic things carried over. Are we, for instance, to call Austin Clarke a Western Author - he is from Barbados, but I don't think he is particularly "Western". The Bible doesn't seem to really be his "Great Code".

Likewise, the bulk of Canadian literature, at least the good stuff, seems to be written by ex-centrics, and not to really fit properly into European or American models - there are as many people using Chinese culture as their ground work as there are using European culture, or Indian culture.

---

I know almost nothing about Canadian literature. But I do know about French departments in the US and French literature. And to support your argument, I suppose, is the fact that Canadian authors in French are often very marginalized or nonexistent in US French departments. In terms of courses, scholars, work, etc in the US, Canadian lit in French is much less visible than books from Africa and Caribbean in French. And of course for the French, anything that isn't from the hexagon has, for a long time, been considered "other." So, yeah. In the world of "French and Francophone Studies," (although I don't like the word 'francophone,' but most still use it) writers in French from Canada are part of their own separate thing.

I suppose Canadian lit in French is also probably pretty separate from Canadian lit in English. But I think it still speaks to the kind of separation you are suggesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Here's my question though - do you consider Canada part of the Western tradition - I personally don't consider contemporary Canadian work part of the West - Atwood is clearly Western, but I don't see anything particularly Western About Alice Munro for example. It seems the bulk of Canadian authors are generally either building on the Canadian mythology (the themes, essentially minus the biblical and cartological ones of Frye and Atwood), various indigenous motifs, and ultimately various other ethnic things carried over. Are we, for instance, to call Austin Clarke a Western Author - he is from Barbados, but I don't think he is particularly "Western". The Bible doesn't seem to really be his "Great Code".

---

I would think so. The same observations you have about Canadian literature can be made about English literature. Look at some of the writers considered part of the contemporary English cannon: Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, Salman Rushdie, Kazuo Ishiguro, and V. S. Naipaul. And that's not even mentioning the Irish writers. The notion of fixed regional cannons are being dissolved. The world is getting smaller. People are relocating, learning the cannons of all types of places, exchanging ideas through peridocles (sp?), translations springing up within a year of an original publication, and now this darned thing we participate on called the internet. By the end of my life time I expect a sort of world cannon that will be shared. Of course the impossiblility of having students read everything will still require decisions of inclusions and exclusions, and that will still force regional literature to take some prominance. But it will not be exclusionary.

By the way, this is a great discussion. I enjoyed all the comments. :thumbs_up

"Bump"

One of my favorite non-western books is Maiba: A Novel of Papua New Guinea. It helps that it is writen in English.

I am impressed by how many Eastern authors stluke has already read ... I have constructed a short (36 texts) World Canon list with the objective "to provide guidance for contemporary readers seeking to obtain a relatively broad and balanced preliminary understanding of the world's major civilizational traditions through reading a limited number of their most influential and representative texts." Hope it provides good additional ideas for your reading. http://lawpark.jimdo.com

The Western canon is much less than not-the-Eastern canon, you can readily ignore indo-american literature, pretty much all eastern-europe poetry and many medieval/colonial texts. The Western Canon is a collection within the collections, and thus, you will find several canons outside it which will be as valid and interesting as any other.

Interesting observation. I have been reading about the A Global History of Historical Writings by Daniel Wolff, and am surprised to find so many historical texts written in relations to the New World which I have not even heard about before... and of course, Davies Norman has long drummed about the exclusion of Eastern Europe from the Western in his Europe: A History.

Clearly the same skewed perspectives exist as much in literature as in historical writings.

One can also look at various anthologies based on region or country, such as Southeast Asian literature or African literature. Several are linked in various online bookstores.

Canons and academies are usually form under the concept of literary history, that's how they justify themselves, it's like an approval from history that makes them valid. But since historical speech is flawed -the right word would be biased-, the canons tend to be partial from a certain concept of history. This is not wrong, this is just how it is.

Another great point. Canonization is actually very much linked to how "history of literature" is written. Similar for art history.

And after a name become so canonized ... everyone tries to look out for how he influenced the rest. I've seen people in theology asking the naive question of "how was St. Augustine influential in the medieval times?" and demand specific evidence. It was "such a no brainer" at first sight of the question, but to show specific evidence (I suppose) turns out fairly hard. I don't know for sure - but I personally suspect that "Shakespeare is very influential" might have been true after the romantics made him a canon (but even then, Dickens? Austen? Mark Twain?), but "Shakespeare" actual influence before the early 19th century? I am not trying to deny Shakespeare's influence, but I feel some of that influence could be attributed to other authors if the same amount of academic resources over generations had been devoted to them instead of to Shakespeare.

Yep, influence is a very phantom idea to prove. Take Borges for example. Saying Borges was influenced by Shakespeare is not unlike saying he was influenced by the 1000 other authors he wrote about. Some will point out Borges wrote several works on Borges, but he also did on Whitman and Chesterton, he loved english language. As an author, Borges decided exactly how much he would be influenced by each of them, with some subconscious choices among those, but still more or less a choice. So when he writes about Shakespeare, maybe he's reading him as Chesterton would, instead of just reading Shakespeare. Who is the actual influence there?

History is not as sorted in our minds as it is in history books.

Wondering what is the state of writing for "world literary history" is right now ... any good books / articles anyone can recommend?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arrowni

Yep, influence is a very phantom idea to prove. Take Borges for example. Saying Borges was influenced by Shakespeare is not unlike saying he was influenced by the 1000 other authors he wrote about. Some will point out Borges wrote several works on Borges, but he also did on Whitman and Chesterton, he loved english language. As an author, Borges decided exactly how much he would be influenced by each of them, with some subconscious choices among those, but still more or less a choice. So when he writes about Shakespeare, maybe he's reading him as Chesterton would, instead of just reading Shakespeare. Who is the actual influence there?

History is not as sorted in our minds as it is in history books.

---

Chesterton is more influential on Borges than Shakespeare. But this is on Borges. But Borges translated Shakespeare and was very keen on sonnets, he read Shakespeare just like Borges would read.

Found a published version of a list of world canonical texts - the actual name being the Table of Contents for Norton Anthology of World Literature (Shorter Second Edition) - apparently is actually taught in some courses somewhere in US?

http://media.wwnorton.com/cms/conten...2e_shorter.pdf

Anyone happen to have the preface / introduction to the anthology? Would be interesting to see how these guys come up with the list ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawpark

Found a published version of a list of world canonical texts - the actual name being the Table of Contents for Norton Anthology of World Literature (Shorter Second Edition) - apparently is actually taught in some courses somewhere in US?

http://media.wwnorton.com/cms/conten...2e_shorter.pdf

Anyone happen to have the preface / introduction to the anthology? Would be interesting to see how these guys come up with the list ...

---

As an advocate of World Literature, I am against that. Literature in the institution needs to be specific. What one reads at home is important too, but the study of literature is not about world literature. One gets somewhere by obsessing over one aspect.

For instance, had I not tried to absorb too much Chinese poetry and literature into me, I would have gotten nowhere - the hours spent trying to go character by character, word by word, paragraph by paragraph got me somewhere. If I was to keep going with different things at once, that is, not take a year off reading Western literature, I bet I wouldn't have gotten anywhere at all.

What is important to studying is not really important to enjoying. But still, some sort of specialization tends to help - we all cannot drink the sea, so we need to decide where to start.

As the concept of world literature emerges, so do the limitations and implications. Japanese literature is far better translated into English than Chinese because of American occupation. With all this nonsense of China the new world super power, I am curious to see where that puts Chinese literature.


Likewise the concept of nationalist promotion must be negotiated - China, a country that 40 years ago burnt copies of Confucius in the street, is now the great Harmonious Confucian nation in their press - and they promote the image worldwide with Confucius organizations.

That is an isolated example - one can add France, Germany, and various other countries onto the cultural propaganda bandwagon. Goethe institutes, Aliance Francais institutes, the list is endless - there is a war for recognition here going on, and world literature needs to address it.

With the decline of American appeal, internationalism is being sold as cultural product - Goethe has gone from author to product, as have any other number of authors.

Where does that leave a canon - well, it quite simply gives a very centralized control over it for the public, which is interesting. The world classics list is just another institution which regulates it, as is Penguin with its almost entirely Western collection, and Norton with its selected world authors, and so on.