So I was reading this SAT essay prompt that brought up the point whether we are the cause of our own demise.
At first, I was thinking of this in general terms. We blame other people many times when something doesn't go the way we want. For example, when a group of students fail a certain test, they tend to blame the teacher who gave them the test. However, isn't that just their fault for not studying hard enough? Here's another example. Let's say that you trust a friend to perform a certain task. If the task does not get completed, you generally tend to blame the friend. However, isn't it your fault for trusting that person?
This got me to think of the books that are put on the canon. We have said that the process of choosing books that go on the canon is unfair. It leaves out a lot of 'good' books and leaves out the existence of many works and authors. Is it possible that it is the author's fault? Is it possible that it is the authors of these books that need to change?
Mary Quien
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well, I would say that many times, society fails to recognize the author, rather than the other way around. After all, some of our most treasured works today were certainly written ahead of their time and required a little while to "sink in." To use an example we're all familiar with, The Great Gatsby was not appreciated right after its release. It was only many years later did society turn back to Fitzgerald's work and realize how well the book symbolized the Roaring Twenties or the Jazz Age.
Well, it certainly seems difficult to write a work that becomes canonized. One needs to write a work that is ahead of its time but also representative of its time, one that many people understand but not one that too many people understand.
-Eric W.
This whole idea of "self demise" oddly reminds me of middle school Health class. Mrs. Zimmalong taught us that it is part of human nature to pass the blame onto someone/something else..even inanimate objects! If we fall, we blame the sidewalk. If we miss a tennis ball, we throw our rackets to the ground. If we each took responsibility for our respective actions, wouldn't daily processes pass along much more smoothly?
I doubt that we have the right to blame the author of a certain work. I think we can generalize and say that the majority of the authors in the canon never specifically wrote in hopes of one day being studied. I am convinced that the decisions relating to the content of the canon are hugely based on luck/bias. The members on the panel either like or dislike the book. It almost seems rather elitist.
(Sam Maliha)
In some ways, the concept of fault arises from a lack of responsibility on our part. It is in human nature to be fallible - to be imperfect. Or perhaps, it should be said that it is natural for us to be unable to attain "perfection" (As that is how we have defined it). On the other hand, we loathe acknowledging our shortcomings and deficiencies. Thus, our capacity to dream has provided us with both the concept of perfection and the incapacity to readily admit to our limitations.
Fault is the perfect vehicle to somewhat bridge the two ends of the spectrum. Its existence allows for error while maintaining a facade of at least being somewhat close/near to perfection.
So is it the canon's "fault"? Or the authors' "fault"? I'd say that since both are subject to human tendencies towards imperfection and error, both probably serve as origins of the mistakes made in choosing what goes into the canon.
This discussion reminds me of English last year. When we were reading the Bible as/in Lit. and discussing archetypes, it seemed that the redirection of blame was a regular pattern. Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the serpent. So, whose fault was it? From this example, I would say that fault usually falls into the hands of everyone involved, even if to a small extent.
In the case of canonization and whether its the author's fault or the panel's fault that a book isn't canonized, it's probably more a chance of luck, and whether a book is widely known, what the biases of those on the current panel are, etc. This reminds me of one of the definitions Mr. Laz threw out to us yesterday-- the canon as a tool for dialogue and argumentation...
Emily T.
Post a Comment