4 ms·

> "Literature has always been a conversation among writers who borrow, build upon, and deviate from each other’s words. Forgetting this, we forget that aestheti

> "Literature has always been a conversation among writers who borrow, build upon, and deviate from each other’s words. Forgetting this, we forget that aesthetics is not a social invention, that democracy is not an aesthetic category; and that the dismantling of hierarchies is tantamount to an erasure of history." What an absurd statement. "The dismantling of hierarchies is tantamount to an erasure of history"? No, no. The danger of the canon is that it presents its status as self-evident, obvious, a birthright. "Of course these texts are foundational, and should be." A canon isn't just a group of texts that are good; it's a group of texts and ideas that try to place themselves outside of the realm of judgment by presenting themselves as near-holy. It should go without saying; there can be many different groups of good things for different people, many different preferences. Wanting to preserve pre-existing hierarchies without changing it is one of the most oppressive things I can imagine.

jonnathanson 12y ago
It is also worth noting that the canon, such as it can be said to exist at all, has been a remarkably fluid list over the years. The works, topics, and authors that appeared in the putative canon 100 years ago have been significantly changed in today's putative canon. The same list from 200 years ago was different from the list 100 years ago, and so on. (Even the people we think of as historical mainstays, such as Shakespeare, have come in and out of fashion over the centuries.) Cultures tend to reshape their canonical lists to suit current tastes, preferences, and philosophical goals. "The Canon" is a much less fixed and immovable object than people commonly imagine it to be. This, in and of itself, is another flaw in the argument that "The Canon" should be preserved at all costs. Which canon? Which version?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jobposter1234 12y ago
  Even moreso here in the States, where we have less of a pre-1900 literary history. When public schools were becoming more common late in the 19th century in America, schoolteachers needed material. They wanted to highlight American authors. As we didn't have many, they stretched their selections to include books that might not be as high quality as if we made the list nowadays. (Indeed, most good American literature was produced after 1900 -- Hemingway through Thompson through Wallace). Now we teach Hawthorne and mediocre literature because they were part of the American canon. However, they were included because we didn't have a lot of other options.

jonnathanson 12y ago

It is also worth noting that the canon, such as it can be said to exist at all, has been a remarkably fluid list over the years. The works, topics, and authors that appeared in the putative canon 100 years ago have been significantly changed in today's putative canon. The same list from 200 years ago was different from the list 100 years ago, and so on. (Even the people we think of as historical mainstays, such as Shakespeare, have come in and out of fashion over the centuries.) Cultures tend to reshape their canonical lists to suit current tastes, preferences, and philosophical goals. "The Canon" is a much less fixed and immovable object than people commonly imagine it to be. This, in and of itself, is another flaw in the argument that "The Canon" should be preserved at all costs. Which canon? Which version?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jobposter1234 12y ago
Even moreso here in the States, where we have less of a pre-1900 literary history. When public schools were becoming more common late in the 19th century in America, schoolteachers needed material. They wanted to highlight American authors. As we didn't have many, they stretched their selections to include books that might not be as high quality as if we made the list nowadays. (Indeed, most good American literature was produced after 1900 -- Hemingway through Thompson through Wallace). Now we teach Hawthorne and mediocre literature because they were part of the American canon. However, they were included because we didn't have a lot of other options.