Thoughts on the Literary Canon

During the Read or Die meeting last Saturday, poet Angelo Suarez mentioned this issue in response to one of the comments that came up during the discussion. His response got me thinking, once again, about the issue of the literary canon.

Most of what we understand about literature emerges from how it’s been taught to use since we were children. We grow up with familiar names like William Shakespeare, Robert Frost, Jane Austen and Edgar Allan Poe; we grow up reading their works, these so-called “Classics”, being told by our professors and our elders that they are universal masterpieces that transcend the boundaries of time. Sometimes, however, it takes us years before we can actually agree with that sentiment. In my case, for example, I was acutely allergic to the classics until my last two years in high school, when I was old enough to appreciate them. Admittedly, I still get bored by more than a few of the works in that department.

Classics — or, to put it in more academic terms, the literary canon — is a body of literary works that are considered, at least by the academic world, as the “greatest that Literature has to offer”. Anyone studying literature or at least remotely interested in literature frequently encounters this canon. From the way it is taught in schools, students are often asked to read the works, and — whether they like it or not — acknowledge their greatness. Nowadays, readers and scholars alike fall under two general categories: pro-canon and anti-canon. While there are many different arguments in the anti-canon department, the one that hits closest to home for us Filipinos would be something along the lines of If the literary canon is supposed to cover the greatest that Literature has to offer, then why does it only seem to contain dead white men?

This is a valid point, at least at face value. What a lot of people tend to forget is that socio-cultural issues and politics set aside, the canon was established for one reason: to provide readers around the world with a list of some of the great books that they should probably read before they die. Yes, it was established by Europe and America. Yes, it is filled with dead white men (and the occasional dead white female). But it’s also hard to deny the fact that a lot of the works within the canon really ARE wonderful works of literature. Of course, the reasons behind their “greatness” are also varied. Some of them are there because of their so-called “universality”. Others are there because of their literary technique, which may not be appreciated by the general masses but is certainly valuable to literary scholars. Still others are great because of the way they reflect particular realities, principles or sentiments of the time period they belonged to. Regardless, they are, in their own rights, great works, and some of them most certainly deserve the title ‘masterpiece’.

It might also be good to understand why the canon was created in the first place. Before the 1950’s, there was no organized movement to establish a canon… literary works of great value and artifice were simply passed down from age to age in the school rooms. It was only in the 1950’s, during a crisis of the Humanities in the USA and Europe, that the literary scholars of those regions decided to piece together a canon. Were it not for that movement, there wouldn’t BE a canon to serve as a guideline. Furthermore, literature study as we know it today might not have existed.

The literary canon is, indeed, something that should be problematized by the literary scholars our country. However, I believe that the popular approach that literary scholars and manifestos seem to take with it is wrong. We should not disregard the canon because of its political nature: it can’t help but BE political because of its origins. Instead, perhaps we should study both the great works of the literary canon as the scholarly world knows it alongside our own “canon-worthy” masterpieces. And we should not forget that at the end of the day, the canon is just an idea. It’s up to us, as readers, to determine what we think of as great or not. We were, in some ways, the real creators of the canon because readers were the ones who decided what to continue reading and what to pass on to their families, their friends, and whoever else happened to love reading as much as they did.

Let’s face it, readers… there are only so many books that we can read before we die, and the canon certainly has a few of them. Those works didn’t outlast centuries upon centuries for no reason, and the canon undoubtedly makes a good starting point should one ever be lost over what he or she should read.

Last 5 posts by Kae

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists
July 31, 2007 Written by: Kae | Filed Under Latest, Miscellany, Reading 

Comments

4 Responses to “Thoughts on the Literary Canon”

  1. Read Or Die Weblog » Blog Archive » Read Or Die July 2007 Meeting: Love Gathers All on July 31st, 2007 11:07 am

    […] sort of poetry was it since it violated much of the decorous requirements of canon (see Kae’s thoughts on the literary canon). If one had–forcibly or otherwise–assimilated the meters of William […]

  2. trina on August 8th, 2007 2:37 am

    Hi tin,

    I agree about the value of the canon. Although I myself am not well read, until I was forced to do so when I did my MA. I think kids in college need to at least read man lang modernist poetry or short fiction like catcher in the rye or those literature that they can more or less relate to. I have nothing against reading harry potter or commercial paperbacks, but some dose of “classics” will maybe boost literacy and broaden their awareness

  3. trina on August 8th, 2007 3:05 am

    sorry, i meant hi kae :)

  4. sqemporium » Thoughts on the Literary Canon on October 23rd, 2007 10:22 pm

    […] here to […]

Leave a Reply




Close
E-mail It
Socialized through Gregarious 42