As I understand it, he was opposed to the idea of composing a list like that, i.e. a definitive list of what the canon is and what you should read. There's no c

As I understand it, he was opposed to the idea of composing a list like that, i.e. a definitive list of what the canon is and what you should read. There's no contradiction with such a disavowal and defending the canon as such. Obviously there are some works that are core to the canon, that I'm sure he would urge everyone to read, such as the works he mainly discusses in the book (Shakespeare, Dante, Chaucer, Goethe, the Bible, etc). That doesn't mean that he has to be a proponent of compiling them into a neat list.