From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Literary Canon
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:51:46 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Aug12.172130.18101@newstand.syr.edu> dmpowell@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Darin M. Powell) writes:
>
>	
>	Quite right. The canon will grow to include black and women
>	and other traditional "minorities" over time.  It took hundreds
>	of years for the current canon to be created, so it is silly
>	to expect that it will change overnight.
>
>
>	I don't think it's wise to demand that currently popular writers
>	(minority, woman, or otherwise) be placed in the canon *now*.
>	Immediate reactions are not necessarily an indication of literary
>	value -- many of the popular writers of years gone by, who were
>	believed to be "the greatest writers of their time," are not
>	read at all today. Conversely, many writers in the canon now
>	were not known/respected/read in their time.
>
>	Minorities and women will come into the canon as 1) more minorities
>	and women write, and 2) as people study them. It may seem futile
>	to some to study a writer who is now not considered canon, or
>	regarded as "lesser."  But it is this repeated study and reading
>	of writers that gets them into the canon (another thread mentioned
>	T.S. Eliot's revival of the metaphysical poets like Donne and
>	Marvell -- an example of this)
>	

	This is all well and good, and if this is the approach we are
to take then there must be something to do in the meantime. There are,
I think, valid reasons for encouraging the study of noncanonical
authors. I believe that, to a certain extent, literature helps define
culture, and culture defines individual identity. At least those two
factors have an influence upon the formation of individual identity,
though the degree of that influence cannot be effectively measured.
	Currently, the canon is homogeneous both in demographics and
world view. And while Mr. Powell may be sensible in urging patience
until the canon becomes, following its own natural course, more
inclusive, I believe the homogeneous nature of the canon is damaging
both cultural and individual identity.  As someone else stated, the
canon is currently presented AS literature, the-only-real-literature,
the foundation of culture, the ideal. And the authors included in the
canon are seen more as godlike founders of cultures from whom's pens
issued pure truth, unadultared by the cultural outlook, worldview and
bias of times. I know from personal experience that this can impede
the growth of a student, particularly those whose cultural identity is
not identical to that established by the canon as "Truth".
	My own solution was to establish my own personal canon, and to
seek out those books which defined for me my culture as it belongs to
me and justified my view of it and place in it as the person I am,
rather than establishing a cultural ideal which is not truly mine.
However, some students are unable to do this. I suggest that the study
of noncanonical authors be legitimized (as is happening now with
different areas of noncanonical studies are opening up), and not
simply treated as lesser studies or "lesser canons", in order to
balance the homogeneity of the current canon, and that the canon
itself be treated as a peacefully sleeping child, who will awaken in
due time.

>
>	It will happen.

	I certainly hope so. In the meantime, there is still much of
worth to be studied and understood outside of the canon.
-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,rec.humor,sci.skeptic