Jan 16: McAvoy and Watt

How can we benefit from seeing women’s literature as cannon as opposed to non-cannon in relation to the quote “[Cannon] embodies the values of dominant social groups.”

11 thoughts on “Jan 16: McAvoy and Watt

  1. According to McAvoy and Watt, the near identical concepts of the literary canon and male literary production leave a much more diverse true culture “overlooked and unremembered” in literature (p. 5). While this does not only include female writers, it does act as a good example in that female authors wrote and influenced the texts with the intent of consumption by other women. By isolating only the male, upper class storytellers as an indicator of culture, a large chunk of the narrative goes missing as more diverse audiences of readers lose the representation of their culture(s). If women’s works were to be seen as cannon, the introduction of this one audience’s story could tug on a metaphorical thread that untangled many other forgotten audiences as well. An example of this can be seen in the description of a “guide for anchoresses” as the story gets re-written and shaped to fit a distinct audience (p. 6). Though this started with a woman as a writer, it quickly evolved into something much more reflective of a larger culture through its various retellings. As such, the nuanced differences between these adaptations seem to capture a broader view of medieval culture than many other canon works, written for one audience, with one point of view, and one identical culture.

  2. We, as a society, would benefit immensely from seeing more women’s literature included in the canon. The definition of canon is that the work is “regarded as the most important…being of the highest quality,” and to include more works written by women during that time would be the best way to demonstrate that women’s literature is just as important and well-written as men’s (4). As Plate points out, the inclusion of works in the canon tend to “embod[y] the values of dominant social groups;” therefore, it is understandable why the canon is full of works written mostly by men, but it also implies, through the original definition, that a women’s work must not be of as high quality because it is not in the canon. In order to emphasize that the canon was shaped by dominant cultural norms rather than literary value, it is crucial to challenge the current canon to make it more inclusive. This would also help deconstruct some of the stereotypes on medieval women and their education/literacy levels that Conrad-O’Briain discusses in her article.

  3. Past societies typically valued and placed the writings of upper class males on pedestals, with the rare exception of certain works written by females. Obviously, by only praising works coming from a very narrow and specific group of people, we lose a lot of perspectives and narratives from people who were telling their own stories, such as women. As the definition of the cannon states above, its main purpose is to embody the values of the dominant social groups of the time. However, due to the societal expectations of women that have persisted through time, they had no choice but to not be a part of the dominant social group. They were shoved into a small corner of being housewives and mothers, and rarely valued for their writing skills. Seeing and embracing women’s literature as cannon allows for us to gain a wider range of perspective as readers. Because the societies of the past did not see the value in their work, does not mean that modern society should not.

  4. The Literary Canon has always been an active participant in upholding the patriarchal society that we live in today. Women are just now starting to appear in the literary canon, but just because they are adding up in numbers, does not mean that the representation is there. The current cannon is full of white, cis-hetero males, and those who do not fit into those molds, are few and far between. Not only would we benefit from seeing more women in the literary canon, but we also need to make active strides to make the canon more diverse and inclusive to people of all genders, races, and sexualities. Like Macavoy and Watt argue, the intersections of gender, and other attributes, could help to “enhance our understanding of late Medieval English literature as a whole” (6). This would benefit us drastically, because not only would we get perspectives from others whose voices are typically silenced in higher literature, but it would also replace some of the current works/authors that are seen as outdated and problematic.

  5. Including women’s writing in canon can promote the fact that it can also be representative of society at the time as a whole. The writing women did wasn’t just fit for women readers; it could be appreciated by everyone. McAvoy and Watt express this by saying, “To think of this text as belonging to any single group or tradition is to ignore its rich history and the multiplicity of its range and
    influence. Indeed, to examine it as a ‘female’ text in isolation is ultimately to
    ignore a large portion of its extensive (his)story” (7). I think we can benefit from seeing women’s literature as canon because it will establish it as valid, valuable writing in literary studies.

  6. Thinking that men are the “dominant social group” really encourages the idea that some literature is better than others. While, yes, there are works that could be considered ‘better,’ we cannot dismiss works as less important without disregarding their valuable perspective. Seeing women’s literature as cannon would allow for the inclusion of more perspective, which leads to a greater understanding of the evolution of literature and culturally significant roles literature plays. Viewing a broader range of works as cannon would help to remove the perspective that women’s writing is “different [from] and separate [than]” (p.3) the work of men. Throughout time, regardless of who was reading and writing, all people were being affected by significant literature. Work by women and work that relates to women had affects on women and should be valued accordingly.

  7. By including women’s literature within the cannon, it would benefit and enhance everyone’s knowledge of late medieval literature. It would expand our awareness of all races, genders, and sexualities during this period and how they affected their society as a whole. Evidently, there was discrimination against women by them not having earned credit or anyone else who didn’t fit the image of a white cis male although women were greatly influential writers. These women weren’t appreciated and were expected to fulfill their roles as mothers and wives and not recognized for their skills and abilities. I also believe that as unfortunate as it is that the past did not acknowledge and appreciate their work doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t support and strive to get their work recognized now in today’s society.

  8. By introducing female authors into literary canon, we are left with a tradition of greater diversity than before. The female authors we see on our high school syllabi tend to be from the 19th century forward, such as Austen or the Brontës. I think it’s important to have a diverse canon of literature, as this enables us as a society to see ourselves in the role of author, which is a very powerful position, or represented as characters, which can be very comforting. We always can benefit from making our canon more diverse, whether it be by gender, time period, race, or socioeconomic class. These differing viewpoints serve as record of our history. Those who are ignored will be forgotten.

  9. By including female writers in the literary cannon, we can dramatically change the way in which women are viewed. If more women were included in the cannon, they would be considered part of the “dominant social group” which would change the way women are typically viewed, as being second to men. Having a wider range of women in the cannon would allow it to be more diverse and to introduce ideas and beliefs from a variety of different backgrounds and cultures, creating a more open minded and educated society as a result.

  10. With men as the dominant group of authors or “contributors”, and leaving the female group in its shadow, it is very valuable to include female literature in canon. When women writers are included in the canon, it allows all readers, scholars, students, and audiences to engage in the original purpose of the female writers’ purpose: to be ready by anyone. As said by McAvoy and Watt, “books come from books, as families come from families”. Female literature from the Medieval Era contributes to many other pieces of literature from that era simply due to the fact that female authors were contributing the same way male authors were. Studying this now in a modern light allows scholars and readers to understand that the difference between male and female writers during the Medieval Era were separated, however, there was truly no need for such a significant divide since both were equally as insightful and qualified as literature of the time.

  11. I completely agree with the notion that more women’s literature will help not only our society, but women in general. Literature from both women and men should be respected and there shouldn’t be any reason why a women writing literature isn’t on the same level as a man. It shouldn’t matter if a woman’s work is in the canon or not, it should still be considered just the same.
    I really enjoyed reading about this because you think things like these are done and over with, but even today women are restricted with their writing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *