Snippets
Even though I think most ‘canon’ talk is just another popularity contest — I would not include a book in any ‘canon’ unless it has huge cultural impact, and longevity of 500 years or so, and, um, that leaves what? foundational Judeo-Christian texts? other similar religious monomyths? what else? Seriously. — the book-centered site The Second Pass has listed books they would nominate to nix from the Western Canon — wait, just the definition of the word ‘canon’ alone makes me gag a little: since when are writers supposed to respect any sort of institution/law/principle, and can we really say definitively that another artist’s work is ‘authentic’ outside the catharsis the artist achieved in his/her bedroom/prison cell/cabin while they’re creating? I guess the calling-into-question of what makes something ‘authentic’ is another discussion. Maybe it’s only ‘quality’ being talked about, and then doesn’t that just revert back to the culture-boom/500yr thing anyway? Ddddoinkyff.
Except for the Dickens, I think all those books are 20th century, and at least 3 of them are post-1980 (Corrections, White Noise, The Road). What the fuck kind of canon is this? Seems to me more like they’re re-arranging the contemporary lit section at the bookstore. Which, I mean, fine. Whatever.
Also, I think some of their other choices are straw men. Does anyone seriously feel like John Dos Passos is over-read? I don’t know anyone who has *ever* read him, much less anyone who thinks too highly of him. He’s barely taught or discussed. Ditto Woolf’s “Jacob’s Room,” a book I’ve never read, so let’s assume they’re right in what they say about it. Still, does anyone actually read this book? I’d like to see them try and argue against the Holy Woolf Trilogy of Mrs. Dalloway, To The Lighthouse, and The Waves (and/or Orlando, which is the Woolf that Bloom writes about in The Western Canon). You’d lose that argument in a big hurry.
I’ll give them props for two choices, though-
1) Tale of Two Cities. Yes, it’s a crying shame that this lesser Dickens is the one exposure to him that most people get in school. If someone gave me an AP high school English class to teach, I’d assign either Bleak House or Little Dorritt, and that’d be the whole semester right there.
2) On the Road. Not even high school-me could get through this navel-gazing slog of a borefest, and high school-me somehow managed to get through Thus Spoke Zarathustra. One day maybe I’ll re-visit some Kerouac, but right now just thinking about him fills me with bile, and I wouldn’t waste a red minute of my time on him. I feel like he’s the miserable sucking vortex at the center of the whole Beat project.
PS- hey Ken, what definition of canon are you using? Just curious to know what exactly you’re gagging on.
thanks for posting this
Except for the Dickens, I think all those books are 20th century, and at least 3 of them are post-1980 (Corrections, White Noise, The Road). What the fuck kind of canon is this? Seems to me more like they’re re-arranging the contemporary lit section at the bookstore. Which, I mean, fine. Whatever.
Also, I think some of their other choices are straw men. Does anyone seriously feel like John Dos Passos is over-read? I don’t know anyone who has *ever* read him, much less anyone who thinks too highly of him. He’s barely taught or discussed. Ditto Woolf’s “Jacob’s Room,” a book I’ve never read, so let’s assume they’re right in what they say about it. Still, does anyone actually read this book? I’d like to see them try and argue against the Holy Woolf Trilogy of Mrs. Dalloway, To The Lighthouse, and The Waves (and/or Orlando, which is the Woolf that Bloom writes about in The Western Canon). You’d lose that argument in a big hurry.
I’ll give them props for two choices, though-
1) Tale of Two Cities. Yes, it’s a crying shame that this lesser Dickens is the one exposure to him that most people get in school. If someone gave me an AP high school English class to teach, I’d assign either Bleak House or Little Dorritt, and that’d be the whole semester right there.
2) On the Road. Not even high school-me could get through this navel-gazing slog of a borefest, and high school-me somehow managed to get through Thus Spoke Zarathustra. One day maybe I’ll re-visit some Kerouac, but right now just thinking about him fills me with bile, and I wouldn’t waste a red minute of my time on him. I feel like he’s the miserable sucking vortex at the center of the whole Beat project.
PS- hey Ken, what definition of canon are you using? Just curious to know what exactly you’re gagging on.
thanks for posting this
‘Delillo is condescending to his characters’ seems to be a basically meaningless sentence.
‘Delillo is condescending to his characters’ seems to be a basically meaningless sentence.
Hey Justin:
I was using these definitions:
1. a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged
– a church decree or law
2. a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine
– the works by a particular artist or author that are recognized as genuine
– a list of literary or artistic works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality
also, any/all of this : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/canon
Also, can I say that this: ‘permanently established as being of the highest quality’, again, makes me gughghgh — ‘permanently’? Really? So just disregard every sort of flux: artistic, emotional, neural structure… We haven’t even figured out what time is. Ddjdkj. And I get that we have to grasp at a longevity/permanence so as not to off our own maps for keeps, but in my current state I dislike the mysticism attached, as well as the often-tied-upon academic snobbery, etc.
In essence: To claim that a book that has only been around, well, let’s say up to 100 years can be included in any sort of ‘canon’, that a book matching that criteria should be made mystical without a world-changing cultural impact, is to play the popular game, and play it in a very very insular circle of ego-and-intellect HJs.
And thanks for the reply; I like to talk.
Hey Justin:
I was using these definitions:
1. a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged
– a church decree or law
2. a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine
– the works by a particular artist or author that are recognized as genuine
– a list of literary or artistic works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality
also, any/all of this : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/canon
Also, can I say that this: ‘permanently established as being of the highest quality’, again, makes me gughghgh — ‘permanently’? Really? So just disregard every sort of flux: artistic, emotional, neural structure… We haven’t even figured out what time is. Ddjdkj. And I get that we have to grasp at a longevity/permanence so as not to off our own maps for keeps, but in my current state I dislike the mysticism attached, as well as the often-tied-upon academic snobbery, etc.
In essence: To claim that a book that has only been around, well, let’s say up to 100 years can be included in any sort of ‘canon’, that a book matching that criteria should be made mystical without a world-changing cultural impact, is to play the popular game, and play it in a very very insular circle of ego-and-intellect HJs.
And thanks for the reply; I like to talk.
Yeah, their canon-talk is certainly not helping me see the light.
Yeah, their canon-talk is certainly not helping me see the light.
you’re a basically meaningless sentence.
you’re a basically meaningless sentence.
Definitely agree that some of these books aren’t even canonized (The Road? Sure, people liked it, but who is canonizing a book that isn’t even 5 years old?!).
I can see the aversion to the word canon, but on some level I wonder what the alternative is.
Definitely agree that some of these books aren’t even canonized (The Road? Sure, people liked it, but who is canonizing a book that isn’t even 5 years old?!).
I can see the aversion to the word canon, but on some level I wonder what the alternative is.
*fire*
No alternative, I think is the point. A negation. A stop-grope-order.
*fire*
No alternative, I think is the point. A negation. A stop-grope-order.
Stop-grope-order would be wrong.
More like a stop-grope-request, or at least a reexamination and demystification of the ‘sacred circle’ to make it more human, less pretentious, more accessible, etc.
Although I don’t want to define an end, here; consider the questions posed up top as philosophy: a questioning, a call.
Stop-grope-order would be wrong.
More like a stop-grope-request, or at least a reexamination and demystification of the ‘sacred circle’ to make it more human, less pretentious, more accessible, etc.
Although I don’t want to define an end, here; consider the questions posed up top as philosophy: a questioning, a call.
I don’t know. That shit is kinda true. And I say that as someone who really likes reading some DeLillo, since the prose is fucking amazing. But the characters are often … I don’t know. Interchangeable? And kind of subsumed under the books’ ideas? I mean, dude’s an awesome writer of a sentence, and totally impressive as a thinker, but his books tend to have multiple scenes in which a) I’m not sure which character is speaking in a given moment and b) which character is speaking doesn’t seem to be important.
That has nothing to do with this “canon” discussion, though. Which, honestly, as someone who teaches at a university, seems kinda moot these days. We’re so beyond a “canon” in the way lit is taught that it almost makes me yearn for a canon, though I’m sure I’d take issue with any particular canon. Conundrum.
I don’t know. That shit is kinda true. And I say that as someone who really likes reading some DeLillo, since the prose is fucking amazing. But the characters are often … I don’t know. Interchangeable? And kind of subsumed under the books’ ideas? I mean, dude’s an awesome writer of a sentence, and totally impressive as a thinker, but his books tend to have multiple scenes in which a) I’m not sure which character is speaking in a given moment and b) which character is speaking doesn’t seem to be important.
That has nothing to do with this “canon” discussion, though. Which, honestly, as someone who teaches at a university, seems kinda moot these days. We’re so beyond a “canon” in the way lit is taught that it almost makes me yearn for a canon, though I’m sure I’d take issue with any particular canon. Conundrum.
‘a) I’m not sure which character is speaking in a given moment and b) which character is speaking doesn’t seem to be important.’
And if this is the intention?
‘a) I’m not sure which character is speaking in a given moment and b) which character is speaking doesn’t seem to be important.’
And if this is the intention?
jacob’s room is really very good. i recommend it highly.
jacob’s room is really very good. i recommend it highly.
Well, yeah, right. But that’s kinda the point, isn’t it? If it doesn’t matter which character is speaking, then the characters exist to support either a plot or an idea, rather than the idea of fully-realized human people, and … shit, I don’t know. Truthfully, I really like DeLillo, for the most part, but his projects seem to be beyond character-driven fiction in some way.
Well, yeah, right. But that’s kinda the point, isn’t it? If it doesn’t matter which character is speaking, then the characters exist to support either a plot or an idea, rather than the idea of fully-realized human people, and … shit, I don’t know. Truthfully, I really like DeLillo, for the most part, but his projects seem to be beyond character-driven fiction in some way.
Well what’s interesting to me is how the word “permanently” is included there, since the very essence of our “what’s in, what’s out” discussion runs counter to any notion of permanence. I think the definition makes more sense without that word in there, because it better evokes what we’re really talking about, which is a make-do attempt to establish which works of literature are of the most significance from throughout history, are of the most significance and value to the current culture at the present moment.
Yes, your 100 year rule is very much in-line with Bloom’s own ideas about canon-testing, which if I’m remembering correctly, can only begin 2 generations after the death of the author. This is essentially the same “popularity game” that you’re deriding, only stretched over so long a span of time that it transcends any idea of cultural/academic/etc fad and fashion. Trends just don’t last that long- that’s why they’re trends. Ergo, if something retains or gains cultural/academic/popular gravity over a sustained period of decades/centuries, we simply are forced to conclude that there must be something in it to which people continue to respond, including future generations, etc. That’s what transcendence is- the ability to exist in disparate eras, cultures, etc. and also outlast them.
I don’t think anyone can argue that some books have done that, and some books being written now will do that. The question of which and why is the horse race, yeah?
Well what’s interesting to me is how the word “permanently” is included there, since the very essence of our “what’s in, what’s out” discussion runs counter to any notion of permanence. I think the definition makes more sense without that word in there, because it better evokes what we’re really talking about, which is a make-do attempt to establish which works of literature are of the most significance from throughout history, are of the most significance and value to the current culture at the present moment.
Yes, your 100 year rule is very much in-line with Bloom’s own ideas about canon-testing, which if I’m remembering correctly, can only begin 2 generations after the death of the author. This is essentially the same “popularity game” that you’re deriding, only stretched over so long a span of time that it transcends any idea of cultural/academic/etc fad and fashion. Trends just don’t last that long- that’s why they’re trends. Ergo, if something retains or gains cultural/academic/popular gravity over a sustained period of decades/centuries, we simply are forced to conclude that there must be something in it to which people continue to respond, including future generations, etc. That’s what transcendence is- the ability to exist in disparate eras, cultures, etc. and also outlast them.
I don’t think anyone can argue that some books have done that, and some books being written now will do that. The question of which and why is the horse race, yeah?
I think the idea of the cannon may be on the way out. or at least in a process of massive flux, to the point where it is ever expanding and letting in new authors – and dropping many of the stalwarts (a lot of people, myself included, are pretty down on T S Eliot at the moment, and I’m big on Browning and Swineburne, who have been sidelined for quite some time). The study of pop culture is helping this, as it broadens the criteria for “importance”.
Hierarchies are always troubling, but seem to appear. Its inevitable I suppose. I’d rather see more in depth reasons for the jostling, rather than questions of taste. Sure, Delillo may condescend to his characters, but so do Joyce and Kafka at times. Is that reason to dump them too? is White Noise really a character driven novel at all? And regardless of whether Jacob’s Room is good or not (i haven’t read it), is it not an important part of Woolf’s oeuvre? and if not, is Night and Day any better?
And Tale of Two Cities, one can say the same thing. It may not be the best place to start at high school, but is that a good enough reason to dump it? If we’re arguing like that, why not dump some Shakespere. Starting with Romeo and Juliet.
I think the idea of the cannon may be on the way out. or at least in a process of massive flux, to the point where it is ever expanding and letting in new authors – and dropping many of the stalwarts (a lot of people, myself included, are pretty down on T S Eliot at the moment, and I’m big on Browning and Swineburne, who have been sidelined for quite some time). The study of pop culture is helping this, as it broadens the criteria for “importance”.
Hierarchies are always troubling, but seem to appear. Its inevitable I suppose. I’d rather see more in depth reasons for the jostling, rather than questions of taste. Sure, Delillo may condescend to his characters, but so do Joyce and Kafka at times. Is that reason to dump them too? is White Noise really a character driven novel at all? And regardless of whether Jacob’s Room is good or not (i haven’t read it), is it not an important part of Woolf’s oeuvre? and if not, is Night and Day any better?
And Tale of Two Cities, one can say the same thing. It may not be the best place to start at high school, but is that a good enough reason to dump it? If we’re arguing like that, why not dump some Shakespere. Starting with Romeo and Juliet.
I’m not being snarky, but hasn’t the canon always been in flux, always been expanding and dropping?
The study of pop culture seems to me like the death of western thought though. Nothing made me give up on academia quicker than seeing people write dissertations on Marxist Dialectics in Buffy the Vampire Slayer or the Freudian Aesthetics of LOLcats.
agree re: mere questions of taste. In this article, for example, what does it mean to say Delillo should be out because his dialogue and characters don’t exhibit enough realism? Is realism the only standard here?
I’m not being snarky, but hasn’t the canon always been in flux, always been expanding and dropping?
The study of pop culture seems to me like the death of western thought though. Nothing made me give up on academia quicker than seeing people write dissertations on Marxist Dialectics in Buffy the Vampire Slayer or the Freudian Aesthetics of LOLcats.
agree re: mere questions of taste. In this article, for example, what does it mean to say Delillo should be out because his dialogue and characters don’t exhibit enough realism? Is realism the only standard here?
I secont the last part, but disagree totally re: pop culture. Like anything, its a question of rigour. I’ve read realy good writing on Buffy (can’t speak about LOLcats though – but that’s pretty extreme). I’ve read really bad writing on Ezra Pound.
I secont the last part, but disagree totally re: pop culture. Like anything, its a question of rigour. I’ve read realy good writing on Buffy (can’t speak about LOLcats though – but that’s pretty extreme). I’ve read really bad writing on Ezra Pound.
I was once reading a discussion on why the album “Illmatic” was considered to be such a great hip-hop album. One person couldn’t get into it and wanted to know why he should. There were various answers, but the major question that came up wondered if the album was still relevant today.
If someone who knew nothing about the album picked it up today with no context whatsoever, their only knowledge being what is currently on the radio (Top 40, probably), what would it have to offer them? Anything? Sure, it might have influenced a lot of today’s artists, but can it stand on its own today without the legacy it has built for itself? It’s not being released today, but how do you judge these things? Should we revere the artist and become obsessed with their reputation and what they were or should we only evaluate the work they have created? And by what standards do we evaluate either of these? Those of then or those of now?
As you might guess, there was no definite conclusion to the discussion, but it was interesting to read. I still haven’t been able to figure anything out for myself.
I was once reading a discussion on why the album “Illmatic” was considered to be such a great hip-hop album. One person couldn’t get into it and wanted to know why he should. There were various answers, but the major question that came up wondered if the album was still relevant today.
If someone who knew nothing about the album picked it up today with no context whatsoever, their only knowledge being what is currently on the radio (Top 40, probably), what would it have to offer them? Anything? Sure, it might have influenced a lot of today’s artists, but can it stand on its own today without the legacy it has built for itself? It’s not being released today, but how do you judge these things? Should we revere the artist and become obsessed with their reputation and what they were or should we only evaluate the work they have created? And by what standards do we evaluate either of these? Those of then or those of now?
As you might guess, there was no definite conclusion to the discussion, but it was interesting to read. I still haven’t been able to figure anything out for myself.