The Canon

[bluecheese]

I consider this a canonical text:

 

http://www.yhchang.com/CUNNILINGUS_IN_NORTH_KOREA.html

[Two Espressos]

Meh, this thread is starting to annoy me (and I started it!).  I'm still very glad that everyone has been so invested in it: posting, taking part in the poll; getting a snapshot of ideas from some current and prospective graduate students was really my aim.

 

There's a bizarre idea in this thread that popular culture has no aesthetic value...or that people, academics included, get no aesthetic pleasure from reading popular fiction, for example. 

 

Oh really?  When did I or anyone else, at the time of your comment, make any such claim?  Popularity or lack thereof has nothing to do with whether or not I think something is great literature, worthy of "canonization"--that fiendish word-- etc.

 

after all, if pop had no aesthetic value, then the canon would only include shakespeare's sonnets, since that was the "art" he was banking on to save his reputation in the history books. the plays were "just" pop to pay the bills.

 

Again, popularity doesn't validate or invalidate great literature.  I'm not one of those people.

 

I don't think we're talking past each other quite yet. I'm just still not sure I understand you. I looked for the Rupert Pupkin post that you said explains this process, but couldn't find it. If all you're saying is that we need to pay attention to aesthetics, I agree with you and we can be past this point. I just didn't get this idea of partitioning them off or using them as some kind of gatekeeping tool in determining the object of inquiry. I'm just not sure that's possible without divorcing oneself's inquiry from the analyses of material critique, which I don't think is possible in the first place. We're always already in hegemony.

Re: cognitive/evolutionary -- in a perfect world, I'd be all about these, but I've heard and a read a few papers in the past year written in this vein that left me feeling dirty (unchecked and unreflective eugenicism and gender essentialism were involved). Cognitive/evolutionary, because it is influenced by the epistemes of science qua science, does not promote a more valid truth, but I think are best as reflections on their own methods, as with any other form of analysis. They tell us some of the story, but not all of it. We have to get away from this "lens" model of criticism. We also have to put methods under the microscope as texts themselves. I'm hoping you can help with this (also, I think science and philosophy are socio-cultural; as such, beware motivation, dogma, and demagoguery. We can't be led so easily by textual authority, or our jobs are obsolete).

Re: Twilight -- you aren't going to like me saying this, but it's too late; Twilight is already in the canon, as are a great deal of dime novels and dramas through the history of literature. I don't like those books, and I'm not interested in them, but we're already responding to them via our suppression of them, and thus they are either on the margins of the canon or are fragmented and interspersed through the web-like shape of the canon (draw a dotted line between Stoker and Myers). The canon is a lot more organic and hegemonic than most of us are willing to admit because damnit we're supposed to be in charge! But, alas... teen vampire novels. The way I see it, 50 years from now, Twilight will probably only be talked about as being a mass culture fascination that influenced other writers, the way we talk about Melville and Hawthorne in light of 19th century dime temperance/vice novels. People still work on those novels because it helps them better understand Melville and Hawthorne. So, those books aren't at the center, certainly, but they're somewhere.

 

Let's back up and look at the canon the way Derrida looks at the archive. The archive involves impression and selection. It often involves depositories. But there are always radical remainders and present absences in the depositories. Anything we impress or select is a violence to the other. As such, those suppressions are involved in the act of archiving. When we make the decision to exclude Twilight, its being, style, form, etc. can be traced to everything we include. 

 

Re: aesthetics, that's basically all I was saying.

 

How is Twilight in the canon?  Certainly not just because it's popular and some people are talking about it?  Pop culture studies are fine; I'm just going to run like hell from that.  The discipline is diverse enough--again, I still feel that literature is imploding in a sense though-- that I can avoid the shit that disinterests me, and others can do the same. 

 

As far as evolutionary/cognitive work goes, yes, a lot of it can veer into questionable territory!  It needs to be curbed by a healthy, rational skepticism, as does everything (including the canon!  I never said we shouldn't analyze it).

 

ETA:  That last line about Twilight's being, style, form, etc. being traceable to everything we include... what?  This makes no sense to me.

 

What makes some book from 200 years ago better than a popular book from today besides the fact that someone decided one day it should be that way?

 

A lot.  Obviously we're not going to devise a necessary and sufficient list of criteria that defines what it is to be great literature, but we could start with things like

-attention to form

-literary language

-complexity of style (simplicity can be very complex, of course..)

-robust characterization

-worthwhile and unique engagement with profound philosophical, political, artistic, etc. ideas (this is probably the most important element, personally.)

 

I'm sure many people will disagree with this list, but it's just a rough, off-the-top-of-my-head set.  And I'm sure I've forgotten a few things.  Take it for what it is: no more, no less.

 

I don't exactly have time to give a full blooded response to this just now, since I've been skimming the thread while at work, but I think the idea of aesthetics being the gatekeeper to socio-political inquiry is topsy-turvy.  The fascination with the aesthetics of sociopolitically irrelevant and inaccessible works is what, I think, has a greater chance of dooming English.  

 

Which isn't to say I wont call something I think is great "great."  I love your Prousts, your Chaucers and even (with some degree of diiculty) your Miltons.  However, I'm skeptical as to whether any culturally relevant work can be done on analyzing the aesthetics of these works in themselves.  At least, relevant outside of the subcultures and disciplines related specifically to their study.  Of course, maybe, for some, continuing to keep English "alive" means reaffirming the things that make the discipline insular and inaccessible to all but the most devoted nerds (that is, we, the posters here, and our ilk), but I don't think so.  If we're doing this for the sake of keeping our field pure, or just doing it because we think these subjects are fun and awesome, fine.  If we're doing this because we actually want to achieve an effect outside of the field, then we need to look at how texts function outside of the field!

 

I wonder though, how analyzing Milton's meter from a different vantage point is going to help keep English pure more than it would simply contribute to it becoming stale and distant.  I do think that you first need to explain why Milton is important in a cultural, social, political etc. context before you are going to ask someone other than a Milton scholar to read about it.  And, of course, there are a number of cultural, social, and political reasons why Milton is important; and why his work continues to live among us today!  I'd be more interested in something discussing his ideological lineage, or how the echoes of his imagery continue to manifest themselves in contemporary culture.  Not only is it a conversation in which we can continue to make "Great Literature" relevant, but it's a conversation in which people who traditionally might have difficulty accessing Milton's work might access it in new and exciting ways.

 

What is traditionally thought of as "Great Literature" is great, and often has fascinating aesthetic dimensions, sure, but it's increasingly marginal as a cultural force, and like so many other once great cultural forces it's unlikely to return.  I'd rather see the boundaries of literary study challenged and expanded, rather than cling to some nebulous and obscure idea of "what English is."

Why?

 

 

Again, why? Who says? If something is "good" and/or resonates, then why wouldn't it become canonical regardless of how new it is?

 

Ah, but in invoking terms like "good," you're stepping into aesthetic territory.  I think we can define good from bad literature without simply reducing the scope of our vision to the "popularity" of a given work or simply reading everything exclusively in terms of race, gender, class, and/or ideology.

 

I'm probably more empirically minded than some of you here, and I think there's such a thing as objective truth (mathematics and logic, for example.  We're typing responses on computers or similar systems, and computer science is heavily indebted to symbolic logic).  My goal as an academic, simply stated, would be to discover truths about the world and to share my results with fellow scholars and the public.  Perhaps it's naive of me to think truth exists and that I can discover it in some way. If my studies lead me to a much more pessimistic/relativistic position, then so be it.  

 

My mantra: "No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead." --John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

 

ETA: If I haven't adequately answered some points, that's largely because 1) this thread has grown to encompass a bevy of issues [a good thing!] and 2) I have lots of coursework related things to do, so I can't sit here and type out a badass 3000-word response or something.  

Edited March 19, 2013 by Two Espressos

[Drol Noryb]

Which isn't to say I wont call something I think is great "great."  I love your Prousts, your Chaucers and even (with some degree of diiculty) your Miltons.  However, I'm skeptical as to whether any culturally relevant work can be done on analyzing the aesthetics of these works in themselves.  At least, relevant outside of the subcultures and disciplines related specifically to their study.  Of course, maybe, for some, continuing to keep English "alive" means reaffirming the things that make the discipline insular and inaccessible to all but the most devoted nerds (that is, we, the posters here, and our ilk), but I don't think so.  If we're doing this for the sake of keeping our field pure, or just doing it because we think these subjects are fun and awesome, fine.  If we're doing this because we actually want to achieve an effect outside of the field, then we need to look at how texts function outside of the field!

 

Totally. Also, there are times when socio-historical contexts of canonical works are glossed over because of a narrow aesthetic focus or an appeal to "universality." (Ulysses, I'm looking at you.) But I'm with Bennett: it is a false opposition to have to choose between aesthetics and politics, and the two are linked.

[lisajay]

Again, popularity doesn't validate or invalidate great literature. I'm not one of those people.

i didn't say you were one of *those* people. i said shakespeare was, & he wrote most of his "great literature" despite himself.

[Two Espressos]

As much as I should probably let this thread stagnate, I must say that I've largely changed my opinion on this after thinking about it for a few days.  I do think that aesthetic concerns still matter, but I'm with other posters now in claiming that really productive, fascinating work can come from a great number of texts, even the most "non-canonical."  I think a better--and more nuanced-- position than I previously espoused would be to judge the reasoning/arguments behind studying a given text on its own merits.  That's where I'm at right now.  I think many of the criticisms about a lack of intellectual common ground in English still stand, but I guess I'm in the anti-canon camp at present (kinda).

 

As is and has been the case, I've posted lots of stupid things on this website over the years.  Know that my thinking is always in flux, and ideas I entertained in the past may very well have changed!

[lisajay]

on my phone sans full grad cafe functionality, so: +1 sir!!

[angel_kaye13]

Hopefully I get a decent response rate with this.  I'm curious: for prospective academics in English and cognate disciplines, how do you feel about the "canon"?  If you're torn between two or more responses in the poll, please select the response with which you most agree.

 

Thanks, and feel free to discuss the results below! 

I know this initial post is AGES old (pun not intended), but it was fun, so I thought to answer. I was torn between a classical canon and a revised canon (options a. and b.), primarily because I feel the ancients have so much to teach us, even this day. That is not to say that there is not brilliant thought (equal to or greater than the classics) coming out today, I just think modes of thought require time to evince their full brilliance, and for others to see the effect of said-modes of thought; I'm not at all convinced that we have seen the full fruition of the newer classes of thought, and I'd like to see more study on that. Thus, why not start out with the Classics, get your base, and build off of the newer thought (also giving the newer thought time to percolate, so to speak.) That is my preference, anyway. Respect to the forebears and trailblazers! *^^*

[oldmangandhi]

Can I check all the options on the poll? lol

 

I love and hate the cannon. It needs fixing. But it also needs some love.