4 ms·

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

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.