That Literary Canon

Western Lit was the name of the course I took at Cornerstone University in the Fall of 1973 with the intelligent and enthusiastic Dr Diane Portfleet. We had a big fat Norton Anthology but Norton — whoever he, she, they was or were — decided what to include and therefore what to read. That whole approach got hammered when postmodernity bloomed with its claim that inclusion meant exclusion, and the choosers of inclusion were also the choosers of exclusion and who did they thin they were … and even more, their choices reflected their bias and it was time to own up to prejudice and downright powermongering in this whole “literary canon” thing. At the time I took Dr Portfleet’s class I found an affordable copy of The Great Books of the Western World, which I still own and I’ve read a fair number of the books.

What do you think of a “canon”? What do you think of Jockers’ approach below?

From LARB:

But changing the canon — or even a proliferation of canons, as literary studies has fractured into a collection of increasingly well-defined subfields — takes us only so far. Readers are finite creatures, capable of making their way through only a tiny fraction of the millions of books published over the centuries. The problem, at this sort of scale, has less to do with canonical selection bias than it does with our inevitable ignorance of nearly everything that has ever been written. It’s one thing to claim that a particular book was influential in its day (though influence is a tricky matter, more sociological and economic than literary) or that a text has been treated as important in subsequent scholarship. It’s something else entirely to argue that the same book is “representative” of a genre’s or an era’s output, especially when even the best-informed critics have read almost none of the material in question.

So how can we know the outlines of literary history without reading an impossible number of books? One answer is that we can’t. At best we tell stories, some of which are more convincing than others for their intended audiences, but all of which are based on vanishingly small slivers of evidence. Alternatively, we abandon the project entirely, preferring instead to make small but more easily defensible claims about individual texts. A third option, though, would be to change the way we work, to preserve large-scale claims by ending the singular identification of literary study with close reading….

Into this uncertain scene comes an important new volume by Matthew Jockers, offering yet another headword (“macroanalysis,” by analogy to macroeconomics) and a range of quantitative studies of 19th-century fiction. Jockers is one of the senior figures in the field, a scholar who has been developing novel ways of digesting large bodies of text for nearly two decades. Despite Jockers’s stature, Macroanalysis is his first book, one that aims to summarize and unify much of his previous research. As such, it covers a lot of ground with varying degrees of technical sophistication. There are chapters devoted to methods as simple as counting the annual number of books published by Irish-American authors and as complex as computational network analysis of literary influence. Aware of this range, Jockers is at pains to draw his material together under the dual headings of literary history and critical method, which is to say that the book aims both to advance a specific argument about the contours of 19th-century literature and to provide a brief in favor of the computational methods that it uses to support such an argument. For some readers, the second half of that pairing — a detailed look into what can be done today with new techniques — will be enough. For others, the book’s success will likely depend on how far they’re persuaded that the literary argument is an important one that can’t be had in the absence of computation.

So, what’s the literary argument? Roughly speaking, it’s that there are real, broadly identifiable differences between whole classes of books from different time periods and genres and written by authors of different genders and nationalities. If that fact seems obvious, we should ask ourselves what we really know about, say, British fiction as a whole and how we could possibly establish that knowledge in any fully persuasive way using our traditional methods. For every purportedly distinguishing feature of British fiction, there are dozens or hundreds of American (or Indian or Russian) books that exhibit it. Eras and periods are the same, with endlessly multiplying forerunners and stragglers outside their temporal bounds; there are thousands of men who write “like” women and vice versa (enough, in fact, that we might wonder if there’s really a difference between them, especially in the modern period). Such difficulties are of course in many ways constitutive. It’s absurd to imagine a definitive answer (computational or otherwise) concerning the nature of British or modernist or women’s writing, or to the singular generic membership of any given book. But if we’re curious and honest, don’t we want to know whether our provisional answers hold up even a little outside the narrow samples on which they’re based? Wouldn’t we like to know if it’s possible to tell the difference between books — all books — published in the United Kingdom and the United States? Or written by women and by men? Not in any individual case susceptible to a dully correct result, but in aggregate?

"I very much appreciate John Walton’s work. He walks a fine line because he understands, ..."

An Ancient Document (RJS)
"To tell the story of the dawn of the age of authenticity is to show ..."

The Age Of Youthfulness
"We are likely in agreement -- language often gets in the way. For example, I ..."

An Ancient Document (RJS)
"I worry, a little, we emphasize the literalness of these stories too much. For example, ..."

An Ancient Document (RJS)

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Andrew Watson

    I was raised in a rural baptist church to believe in a literal 7 day interpretation of Genesis,with Scolfields gap theory to explain where dinosaurs came from. However as I got older and started reading the bible for myself I realized something. How do we humans know how long a day is? From the rotation of the sun which takes 24 hours. How do we know what an evening is? By watching the sun set and the world go from light to dark. How do we know what a morning is? By watching the sun rise and watching the world go from dark to light. What does God do on day 4? He creates the sun. So God had 3 whole days with evenings and mornings before he created the instrument we humans use to measure and define what days mornings and evenings are. This makes me believe that Gods definition for these things and our definition for these things are not the same.

  • Full many a gem of purest ray serene
    The dark unfathom’d caves of ocean bear:
    Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
    And waste its sweetness on the desert air.

    Some village Hampden that with dauntless breast
    The little tyrant of his fields withstood,
    Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest,
    Some Cromwell guiltless of his country’s blood.

  • Hello Andrew.

    This makes me rather think that the Bible contains fallible human thoughts about God. But bringing science in agreement with the Bible isn’t the main problem.

    The hugest issue is undoubtedly the texts showing us God as a monster, far worse than quite a few human criminals.

    Lothars Sohn – Lothar’s son

  • I fail to see generally any difference between books within and outside the Canon. All show us different, at times contradictory human thoughts and feelings about God.

    I feel much more edified by books from C.S. Lewis than by the book of Joshua for instance.

    Lothars Sohn – Lothar’s son

  • AHH

    Uh, did you actually read the post?
    That’s not the “canon” it is talking about.

  • Oh, I must feel ashamed, I have now the feeling I’ve completely misunderstood the post ;-(

    This might be due to the fact my knowledge of anglo-saxon literature is rather limited, especially for books of the past.

    I thought this was all about the Bible.

    Lothars Sohn – Lothar’s son