So I figured I might as well discuss the definitions that Mr. Lazarow gave us in class the other day.
The first definition, if I recall correctly, was that the canon is a list of books that we should read. This definition is understandable. For some reason or another, we would benefit from reading those books. It may be because of the different style of writing or the level of words used. However, I think that definition may be a bit too broad. After all, what we 'should' read can be determined by anyone. Also, we can benefit from reading from almost any book, right? This definition of the canon makes it sound as if those are the only books that we have to concern ourselves with, which of course is not true at all.
The second definition was that the canon is a list of books that cause us to feel guilty when we don't read them. I think that this is pretty accurate. Usually, such books are read by a large number of people and have good reviews. When other people start talking to you about a certain book, don't you start to feel a bit guilty? I know that when so many of my friends read 1984 and were talking about it, I felt a bit guilty about not knowing anything about it. I even felt a bit of regret for not picking up the book on my own. In a way, the canon creates this sort of hierarchy. Those who have read such books are considered intelligent and somewhat important in being able to handle such readings. Those who haven't read those books tend to be put on a level below that.
This got me thinking of how some people can easily fake reading these books. If even teachers can fake reading these books, then they really shouldn't be regarded as highly as they are.
Thoughts?
Mary Quien
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I too agree more with the second definition. I think the canon is in many ways a list of books that people feel guilty if they have not read. As we discussed in class, there are many sort of elitist aspects to the canon and the determination of which books are "good enough" to be canonized.
I think this guilt derives in large part because traditionally people are educated based on the books in the canon. Students read virtually only canonized literature in high school. Having read the canon shows in part that you are educated. You learned what you were supposed to. You studied the books that are considered by "dead white guys' to be particularly important. Therefore shame/guilt is a consequence of not having read the canon.
On a slightly different note, I was thinking about the problem of determining which books are worthy of canonization. It seems to me the difficulty of determining what should be canonized comes in large part on how virtually everyone is educated. We are educated reading the books that are now canonized. Therefore we are taught that THESE books are the most important, THESE books should be canonized. Throughout time, people have had difficulty changing the dynamic of education. As we discussed today in class, the Puritans educated in the classical style because they were taught in the classical style. There are of course other merits to this system, but the primary reason it proliferated is due to the fact that society is, in my opinion, very reluctant to change its education system. Therefore, after the first "dead white guys" decided something was worthy and it was begun to be taught in schools, it became accepted. Many suggest that Shakespeare is no longer the most relevant or significant text that we could be reading, and yet it continues to be taught.
(Molly Dunbar)
Not having read a book, but pretending to have done so, isn't as hard as it may seem. By the time we are tested on the material as a whole, we are expected to grasp general ideas rather than minute details. Spark notes and cliff notes provide these major themes and motifs in condensed paragraphs accessible to virtually anyone. These sources don't only provide summaries of works that have been canonized, but ones that have generally attained some popularity. Popularity must be key.
My freshman year English teacher had a binder filled with notes that was at least four times as thick as the book itself. While reading the book, the supplemental readings/information was helpful and greatly appreciated. But the next year, when questioned about the book, I realized that I could have answered based solely on summaries found online rather than using the hours spent on interpreting certain passages, symbols, etc...
Molly's right when she brings up the correlation between status/education and books in the canon. Many a time we have referenced 1984 and A Tale of Two Cities and have been commended for doing so. No doubt they are useful, however. Orwell was a huge help when discussing Hayakawa.
(Sam Maliha)
Regarding the first definition, certainly a "list of books we should read" is a broad, arguable definition, but that is the nature of the canon. Whatever book one person believes is beneficial may draw an opposing response from someone else. That's why the canon is debated over even today.
The second definition draws a chuckle out of me, and it's true in many situations. Certainly, because the books on the canon are the ones we "should" have read, we often feel guilty if we have not read them. Mark Twain has a particularly apt quotation here: "A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read."
Ironically, Twain's very own Huckleberry Finn is now considered one of those "classics."
And as human beings have a natural tendency to assert superiority over their fellows, one often can boast of reading those "canonized" works at the expense of someone who has not. But when people fake reading a book merely to gain that status, they are failing to see the point of the canon. They are confusing the symbol with the thing, and instead of actually reading the books, they merely pretend to in order to gain society's recognition and praise. ("Oh wow! You've read A Tale of Two Cities!")
-Eric Wei
Post a Comment