The Literary Canon

Discussion in 'Discussion of Published Works' started by Lemex, Apr 13, 2014.

  1. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    Updated, included the core of Victorian Realism, now moving onto the 20th century and Modernism. I'm coming closer to the present day. :)
     
  2. thirdwind

    thirdwind Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,851
    Likes Received:
    3,339
    Location:
    Boston
    @Lemex, a few Russians you missed: Tolstoy, Gogol, Pushkin, Turgenev, and Chekhov.
     
  3. Burlbird

    Burlbird Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    294
    Location:
    Somewhere Else
    Hm, don't get me wrong, I really appreciate your effort, but the list is really moving towards anglo canon with an occasional good-read thrown in somewhat randomly: Dostoyevsky, Hoelderlin, Goethe and Voltaire seem the only non-english authors in the 18 and 19 centuries :)

    It was probably far easier to establish a canon of pre-modern/pre-national (world?) literature(s) (although I'll keep questioning Gilgamash :)), but in the last 300 years everybody's writing so it's the share abundance of material that can cause a headache... Maybe you should contemplate on only including translations of non-English texts to English, and base their position in your list on the influence and impact they had in the context of English literature. That would certainly explain Dostoyevsky versus Tolstoy, as the former is more widely read in English. It would also allow for Gilgamash to exist as part of any list, because evidence of any (literary) influences the "epic" had, its diachronical position if you like, are slim at best ("there was a flood" etc) :) - but its discovery and subsequent translation made it important for our understanding of literature (among other things) thus earning it a place on any "canon" list :)
    Another thought: concentrating on the position of translations, and maybe even regarding them synchronically, positioning them on a horizontal axis if you like, instead of trying (and failing) to observe their position in their native languages, also helps with texts such as "The Arabian Night" - texts that exist only in translation, both linguistically, structurally and in content (Galland's inclusion of Aladin and Ali-Baba, for example)

    Keep up the good work!
     
    Lemex likes this.
  4. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    Bulbird, you are right. :) I'm going to make it more objective soon. I'm considering stopping at 1900 just so it's not too much subjective feelings. I'm going to add more non-English texts, just using what I'm familiar with as a base. :)
     
  5. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    After heavy considering I've changed the 'rules' somewhat. I've come to the conclusion that there is no core 'canon', pretty much after Dante. After Dante are three works that are pretty much essential background reading for modern literary fiction

    So, the list has changed, it is now the 50 essential books you need to read to be familiar with the essential human world literature, mostly western (that could not be helped) and what I understand are the basics of Chinese literature (no western reader would understand Chinese literature without those titles - I have on good authority) and including India with it's two Hindu epics.

    Pretty much after Dante all canons become nationalized and what might apply to an English canon is not the case to a French canon. So, I'm just going to call it and say that Dante is essentially the end of universal literature for the sake of fairness. Also, isn't Paradiso a neat little ending to this list?

    There are a few titles after Dante, but they should be considered exceptions to this general rule I have noticed, and as you can see, English titles seem to become more common anyway.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2014
  6. minstrel

    minstrel Leader of the Insquirrelgency Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2010
    Messages:
    10,742
    Likes Received:
    9,991
    Location:
    Near Sedro Woolley, Washington
    Quitter!

    :p:D
     
  7. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    Haha, that is one way to put it. :D

    I faced a terrible choice. Admit the original project was far beyond my knowledge and even patience, or make it a purely English canon and face the very painful idea of putting Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and Arnold Bennett on the list. :p
     
  8. minstrel

    minstrel Leader of the Insquirrelgency Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2010
    Messages:
    10,742
    Likes Received:
    9,991
    Location:
    Near Sedro Woolley, Washington
    Or J.K. Rowling?

    How 'bout an American canon, where you'd have to include Ayn Rand? :eek:
     
  9. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    I honestly think I couldn't live with myself if I put Ayn Rand on a canon list. And what worries me is she might actually have a place. :eek:

    I was using English in the sense of the general English language, hence Wadsworth. Sure, his Dante isn't bad, but much of his other poems are. I was looking forward to suggesting Robert Frost as canonical too, but Ayn Rand. God. I think I could have just about lived with myself including Rowling into a canon if I also included Pynchon and Achebe to 'clean' the list, but Rand: I'm going to have trouble sleeping tonight with that thought.

    I'm actually rereading Atlas Shrugged at the minute. A friend is giving me £10 if I can make it cover to cover a second time, and it's honestly almost not worth it. Well, I'm kind of cheating, listening to the audiobook I've found on YouTube - I forgot how incredibly dreadful her characterization was! Anyone who is a budding Objectivist has the sun shining out of their arse. Anyone who is a socialist/collectivist/not Objectivist is a cartoon caricature. A pointless, evil idiot who crashes trains into walls, and shouldn't be trusted with sharp objects.

    I once had a budding interest in Objectivism when I was an undergraduate. Shows how much I've learned since then.
     
    minstrel likes this.
  10. thirdwind

    thirdwind Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,851
    Likes Received:
    3,339
    Location:
    Boston
    @Lemex, since you're lumping Chinese poetry into one entry, you can include Du Fu and Li Po in that as well. That will then give you room for two more entries.
     
  11. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    Good idea. I'm always looking out for other very important literature that I either have forgotten or simply don't know about. I'm going to be starting an exploration of Chinese literature soon, I swear, and I have a good teacher for it (thought they don't know it yet).

    Making this list has been actually rather helpful for me in that respect, created a small reading list. :)
     
  12. minstrel

    minstrel Leader of the Insquirrelgency Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2010
    Messages:
    10,742
    Likes Received:
    9,991
    Location:
    Near Sedro Woolley, Washington
    You're right about Rand's characterization. Her universe was divided between perfect, heroic, genius Objectivists and scummy, stupid little incompetent socialists. One thing I thought was ultra-disappointing about Atlas Shrugged was that, after two-thirds of this huge book was spent building up John Galt into some kind of god, when he finally makes his grand entrance, he's a straight zero - a hole in the page. He has no personality, no character, nothing to make him memorable. I actually laughed when I found out that his job in Galt's Gulch was handyman. It almost seemed like this transcendent genius who created a world-changing energy technology, redefining the laws of physics in the process, probably earns most of his living repairing bicycles or something. Galt is a nothing. Anybody in a Steinbeck book is more memorable. Heck, anybody in a Rowling book is more memorable.
     
    Lemex likes this.
  13. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    Ha! I've just reached the gulch, and yeah. :D Laughed aloud at this! Somehow the thought of 'Hi, I'm John Galt, and I'm here to fix the boiler,' just seems to ruin the character. :D
     
    minstrel likes this.
  14. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    Just a question: what importance (if any) do people think there is in having read the canonical works like the one in this list?
     
  15. minstrel

    minstrel Leader of the Insquirrelgency Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2010
    Messages:
    10,742
    Likes Received:
    9,991
    Location:
    Near Sedro Woolley, Washington
    This is almost equivalent to asking, "What kind of life do you want to live?"
     
  16. Lemex

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,704
    Likes Received:
    3,425
    Location:
    Northeast England
    Well, what kind of life do you want to live? :p I see your point. :)
     
  17. minstrel

    minstrel Leader of the Insquirrelgency Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2010
    Messages:
    10,742
    Likes Received:
    9,991
    Location:
    Near Sedro Woolley, Washington
    Reading the canon would contribute to having a good classical education. It would contribute to erudition and help make you welcome in certain circles. Some people don't care to move in those circles, though. They want to be auto mechanics and NASCAR drivers and rodeo clowns and hardware store managers and IT professionals and hockey fans. They don't need the canon for that.
     
    Lemex likes this.
  18. thirdwind

    thirdwind Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,851
    Likes Received:
    3,339
    Location:
    Boston
    I agree with Mr. Squirrel. Reading the Canon is only important if you're going to be around others who read the Canon. For me, literature is at its best when people discuss it.
     
    Lemex likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice