Eaglestone’s chapter “Literature, Value, and the Canon” argues that studying English means “reading, studying and writing about the canon” (PDF page 2). Is this a good thing? A bad thing? Why? (Be sure to ground your response in material from the reading, so that it’s not purely personal opinion.)
ENGL 299 | Intro to English Studies
Dr. Myra Seaman | Spring 2017
Only focusing on “reading, studying and writing about the cannon” (PDF page 2) can limit ones ability to have more experience with other works that may not be considered “highly valued and important writing” (PDF page 2). Diversity seems to be scarce because of the lack of representation with different genres, authors, and identities. Eaglestone questions if identity is really taken into consideration when courses are designed and “does the person creating your course ask how you want to see yourself?” (PDF page 5). This can be a negative outcome because there is not an exact definition of what is deemed ‘literature’, which can affect our reasons for reading what we do.
I don’t have the book yet so I apologize, but to restrict study to just canonical works seems incredibly limiting especially when considering that the idea of literary canon usually refers strictly to western literary Canon. This tendency ignores the cultural and literary traditions of half the world and to add to that most works included in the Canon are primarily older works produced by white men. I feel like having a set of works to study is helpful, but it can’t get the way of or discredit the study of works outside of the Canon.
The canon is a basic concept when looking at literature, especially when looking at how literature has evolved. The beginning of this article starts out with a convincing argument on having the canon, but that argument has become fairly outdated as time has moved forward. When talking about Palgrave’s argument, the article states “No didactic poems(poems intended to instruct), no humorous poems and no narrative poems(those simply telling a story) were allowed in.” (Eaglestone, 5) This limits the creativity of an author who is trying to be published, since the whole point of writing should be to express oneself through storytelling. The canon of the past is far different from the canon of today, however, due to the expansion of literature from different cultures into the canon: “Texts that were previously marginalised by ‘the canon’ now are considered important and have canons of their own”(Eaglestone, 10) As long as the canon continues to expand into other genres and topics in literature, the canon can function as an important scholarly device, but it must continue to grow to be fully considered a “good thing”.
Though I agree with the idea of a “canon” of great writer and works that everyone should study, I disagree with the idea of the canon not being expanded to include more diversity and even writings that didn’t originate in the English language or culture. I also disagree with the idea that studying outside the set canon is somewhat unnecassary or of a lesser importance and influence. I feel that those ideas go against the very meaning and relavence behind studying English that was fought for for so long. As the Leaves themselves argued “… only literature, and the rigorous study of literature, could remind us of our human values and of what was truly important.”. (Eaglestone 14) I agree this is the case and the value of studying English, however I feel that limiting the canon or simply only studying the canon does not fully give a universal shot of human values or what is truly important to humanity as a whole. Rather studying English will be studying only English works by English authors and therefore would only allow an understanding of English culture and values making it no better that the forced study of English, Britain placed on India to better “mould” (Eaglestone 11) the them, and I find that this moulding goes against the importance of studying English, even by the Leaves definition.
I honestly see writing only about the canon as a bad thing. In the first PDF, it states that “We use conventions to divide up our world, but the world really doesn’t have set categories” (8). The second PDF makes clear that the canon is constantly changing, with certain works and writers falling out of favor to make room for others, but it doesn’t change that we’re leaving something out. I wonder why what’s left out doesn’t deserve the sort of attention that the canon receives. Could it be detrimental to society, or simply unattractive?
I think it has some good but overall I think It can be negative. From studying “The Cannon,” we get a broad sense of the most well known and studied pieces of literature, but I feel like it can be very limiting. You really only get an understanding of western cultures from the cannon, but who’s to say the literature of other cultures isn’t just as important? During my African American Literature course I learned so many things that I would have never found out through literature in the cannon. Western values shouldn’t be seen as the standard or the universal set of values for many reasons but one being it plays into the idea that Whites as the dominant race. I think the idea in the article of having many different cannons would be more beneficial, because each genre and culture has its own generic conventions