'Hey, Dickens was a pulp writer, Tolstoy a sexual maniac and heretic, Twain was satirical... ;-)
Btw, Shakespeare was for quite some time considered as anything but respectable (especially for his lack of decency and the general lewdness of his texts).
'Novel' was in the beginning a "low" genre and not in the same league as epics or classical drama, the German "Roman" was even less reputable. I hear the same was true in China were it was a major faux pas to use the word for novel in the same sentence as those for "true" literature.
The canon has its fashions too.'
I think this quote sums it up nicely that fashions change what is now considered a classic wasn't always thought of that way. It's interesting to think what could be thought of as a classic in the future I just hope its not Harry Potter!
3 comments:
I agree with both this quote and Kevin's comment. I think these fashions need to be thought of when looking at a books ability to become a canon.
I also hope that Harry Potter never does. It not really the kind of book you expect to read and study for even if it has got many children reading.
I think Kevin's and Hollie's comments suggest both the value and the limitations of the original passage. Its value, as you both point out, is in stressing that canonicity changes over time. However, we need a more detailed understanding of HOW and why such changes occur. The crude language and sweeping exaggerations of the original passage don't really help here. To call Dickens a 'pulp' writer is anachronistic since the genre of 'pulp' did not exist when he was writing. More importantly, it is misleading to say that Shakespeare was considered 'unrespectable'. Yes, his plays were often edited, to remove sexual references, and even plotlines altered (most famously, the tragedy 'King Lear' was given a happy ending in 19c. performances) However, these were attempts to expunge 'unrespectable' elements from classic texts. There's only any point in doing this if you regard the texts in high esteem in the first place.
It's interesting you both raise 'Harry Potter' and Hollie makes an interesting point which connects with much of the US discussion. Behind much of the debate we've been looking at is an assumption that the value of Literature lies in affirming something, usually something that is seen as more valuable than, and/or threatened by, simple popularity as defined by the market. What is 'Harry Potter' affirming? (the English public school?)
I think we have both mentioned Harry Potter because it lacks credibility as a piece of literature. Whilst it may be popular, which helps a book to be remembered as part of a cultural cannon it is percieved as being too low-brow to gain the same status as something like tolstoy or dickens. Status in a cultural canon is all about how it is percieved by people, which is why it is so difficult to explain why some things are remembered and some aren't.
Post a Comment