Here is another literary critic who has defined greatness in literature: Harold Bloom made a list of the "Western Canon of Literature." I found this list online, I hope it's accurate.
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtbloom.html
As I was perusing it, I saw that Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle was included but not Slaughterhouse Five. Why would that be? Also, Stoppard's Travesties made the list but not Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. I just thought this site/list was interesting and went along with what we had discussed in class about what should be included in the canon. Well, here it is, a *genuine?* canon.
I haven't counted the number of women writers in it, however, the list was just too long.
6 comments:
Wow, that is quite a list. This list, coupled with our discussion in class today makes me think, if we really can't narrow down the almighty canon, or if we narrow it down so slightly that the list is still astronomical, then what's the point? Is it even worth it to decide what makes something great if so many things can be considered great that it is impossible to read even a fraction of them?
That is quite the list. I better get reading now. One thing I found interesting was how he divided up the canon into "ages." What are these ages? The 20th century is called "The Chaotic age." Don't we always see the most recent time as the most chaotic, because we just don't understand its implications? Also, the list is by country, and that makes it quite obvious that the United States and Britain have quite massive lists. Go cultural hegemony!
It "would" be possible to read the majority over a lifetime, but I think you'd not want to start from the beginning of the list. Since it is chronological, you'd be better off reading some from each time period. Even if you did have the chance to read it all though, I don't think you would necessarily have a complete grasp, because any grasp will be a fraction of understanding.
I think the fact that Slaughterhouse Five is left out, but Cat's Cradle is included, just goes to show how subjective the formation of a canon is. This is just one critic's opinion. Bloom is using his own criteria for greatness and applying them to certain works. This list could be useful for people wanting advice on what to read, however, I don't think a list like this should be treated as if it's something everyone should live by. I think the only time someone should turn to a canon is if they do not have their own opinion of what is great and need help defining it. Moreover, I think it’s interesting that some authors like Vonnegut have only one title on the list, but Dickens has 14. If Bloom has such a strong opinion of what is great, then he should use these criteria to narrow it down further, perhaps limiting each author to only one or two works. This would make the list slightly more manageable.
I've been thinking about how large the "canon" that we came up with in class was. And Bloom's, though it's no where near what our infinite list,includes so many titles that most of us will never read nearly the whole thing. So, besides jumping to the idea that because of this we shouldn't have a canon, i wonder what bloom would tell us to read from this canon if we were only going to choose, say, 100 books. since we probably have no idea (and it's also probable that bloom would have no idea either), we see again what a mess this whole process of trying to decide on a canon that we "should" read consists of...there's simply too much out there to be able to decide, and too much we haven't read. not to say that there aren't some works that are better than others, but this whole process seems so exhausting and fruitless that i'm beginning to say "why bother"...
I also, feel the same overwhelming emotion that Megan felt when she said that since we can't narrow the cannon down, what is the point of a cannon at all? Also, this was an interesting cannon for me to look at because I never thought much before about organizing a cannon. And even though I cannot think of a better way than this one was organized, this cannon seemed very chaotic.
I think that in order to have a functioning organized cannon, very strict and specific criteria must exist. I do not know what these set standards should be though. I also have no idea how to not make the determination of the good literature subjective. As Emily pointed out, the fact that Slaughterhouse Five is on this specific cannon and Cat’s Cradle is not does show subjectivity. It seems to me that everything in a cannon and in determining what is good is subjective.
Of course its subjective--that's what the process of defining a canon is all about: listing criteria, then using personal opinion to give works either inclusion or "the boot."
Giving in to the urge to criticize the list, though, I would join michelle in protesting the distinct lack of female writers within this list...I also think its sadly ironic that Bloom noted in the preface to the final "age" that he was "not as confident about this list as the first three. Cultural prophecy is always a mug's game," followed by the comment "I have neither excluded nor included on the basis of cultural politics of any kind." First, that is impossible. Second, while I lack the time to argue that he excluded or included on the basis of cultural politics, I certainly will point out that he *organized* on the basis of cultural politics: the sections for "Yiddish" and "Hebrew" works group authors by the language in which the works were written or the perceived cultural group with which the works "belong"; though the authors lived in Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Israel, Germany, France, etc., they were not grouped inclusively with these geographic regions (seeming to state the authors were not definitively Polish or Russian, which would be correct ethnically but dead wrong in terms of citizenship).
Furthermore, authors who wrote in a language *other* than Yiddish or Hebrew (like Babel, who wrote in Russian) were not included within either the Yiddish or Hebrew listings, though the author's writings were as or more influential within Yiddish-speaking Jewish communities as within Russia proper. Perhaps this is simply a more complicated situation than others, but this particular error seems to rob slavic countries, particularly, of the ability to even begin to demonstrate the cultural diversity of their territories which seems to be the very *goal* in mind in determining the American canon.
I am pleased to see the American list includes LeGuin, but am mystified as to how this can be when Heinlein isn't mentioned at all...
Sorry for the rant...I blame Bloom.
Post a Comment