From: matt@physics2 (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Literary Canon
Date: 18 Aug 1992 02:41:11 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (theoretical physics group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
Summary: My reply to Vance Maverick


In article <16h5qbINNhc1@agate.berkeley.edu> maverick@cs.berkeley.edu (Vance Maverick) writes:

> |> To take one small example: whatever the "Canon" is (personally, I
> |> define it as those books that get taught in introductory literature
> |> courses in high school or college), I don't think there's any question
> |> that the Iliad is in it, and the Mahabharata is not.  Why is that?  Is
> |> it that the Iliad is an "objectively" better work?  
>
> I think you've picked a bad example.  Western literature has been
> thought of in relation to the Iliad for a very long time -- indeed,
> the professors who make the decisions you're calling canon come from
> an intellectual tradition in which, for a long time, reading the Greek
> and Latin classics was the *only* academic preparation for modern
> literature.

Actually, I think I picked a rather good example for the point I was
trying to make; it seems, though, that I failed in communicating
exactly what that point was.  So I'll try again.  (To tell the truth,
Vance, I think part of the problem is that I was trying to make a
point which you probably think is so trivial and obvious that you
probably thought I was trying to say something deeper than I really
was.)

I chose the Iliad carefully because it really is central to the
Western European literary tradition; if someone is interested in this
literary tradition, it clearly is correct for them to study this work.

There is, however nothing at all universal or absolute about this
decision; the importance of the Iliad exists only in the context of
that tradition.  In the context of a different tradition---Indian
literature, for example---the Iliad is no longer central, but
peripheral, and other works (the Mahabharata, for example) are instead
central.

My point is simply that literary judgments aren't in any sense
universal, but are made in a particular context.  There is nothing
nefarious about this; the reasons that English professors have chosen
to study Homer are quite sound.  Still, I think that if we recognized
the relativity of these judgments, and the cultural context that
underlies them, we might be a little bit less dogmatic about defending
some particular list of works as, in some absolute sense, the best
literary creations of the human race.

> |> it is obvious to me that whether
> |> or not literature is great, or compelling, or meaningful, has as much
> |> to do with the reader as with the text. [....]
> |> 
> |> [of the Mahabharata] I am quite sure that I, personally,
> |> would get less out of it than I did out of Homer [....]
> |> That has nothing to do with which book is
> |> better, though; it is simply a comment on my cultural background.
> 
> I think you're being a little inconsistent here....

Really?  In my opinion, I am saying exactly the same thing in these
two excerpts: I am an inhabitant of my culture just as much as an
English professor is.  I certainly find some books more meaningful
than others, because some books are more central to my culture than
others are.  There is nothing to be ashamed of in that; this fact does
not mean that my literary judgments are necessarily arbitrary or
capricious.  However, I believe it is important for me to remember
that my judgments are a function of *my* cultural background, and that
there is nothing universal about them.

Oh, and a point that I did not make in my original posting, but which
is a trivial extension of what I did say: just because two literate
people are from the same country does not mean that they necessarily
share the same culture.  The whole problem with a "canon" which is
defined too narrowly is that works which are central to my literary
culture are not necessarily central to everyone else's.



-- 
Matthew Austern              I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band 
(510) 644-2618               of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu    taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
austern@theorm.lbl.gov       multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books