My shelves are highly organized. I am developing quite the library and in order to find things, well, I find it quite imperative to have genres/styles/time periods/authors (size of book also factored into arrangement) in mind when looking for a particular book. The system is flawed as I had thought I'd lost a book only to find on an unexpected shelf. I realize by looking at the size of the book and that it was a hardcover it explained the placement, but still, flawed. And then there are the books that I realized I had forgotten all about. But that is another topic.
As I was looking through my stacks I came to the conclusion that with the exception of 1 bookcase, I have determined my own "personal" Canon that appears in bits in pieces on my shelves. Whether it be in current fiction (my book shelf or hardcovers and book shelf of paperback) or my theory bookcase (yes, I have enough books on Aesthetics, Literary Theory, Cultural Theory that they have a bookcase unto themselves, a rather large one). But this really shows up where literature scholars would view I have The Canon shelved (1 of 2 such cases, but this one is purely focused on this type of literature). But I have made it my own, kind of, influenced of course by the actual Canon without doubt. My Canon is influenced by the type of literature I am drawn too, texts that challenge me and make me think, I am not a big reader of "pulp fiction" these books just do not motivate me to read (what they do is for another time). I will say it is not perfect space creates the imperfection, but does not detract from my point.
On the top shelf (oh, I built this bookcase at 12) we have the top of my Canon:
For me Henry James is my main man. And he has the place of honor on this shelf. Tucked next to him his contemporary and competition Edith Wharton, then there is James Joyce. These are not literary lightweights. And both James and Joyce rarely taught. The Canon thinks that they are too difficult and rarely make it to students. Shameful (they are not too difficult to teach, this must be overcome), but they make my top tier Canon placement.
The Middle Shelf, still weighty but not Henry:
Being a Modernist girl at heart, this would be my literary time period (Henry James and Herman Melville are both early Modernists, but this is another topic), no surprise to find Fitzgerald, Ellison, Waugh, and Chandler located there. All powerful and important authors, but in my opinion not up with James. Hence their placement on the second shelf.
Lastly the bottom shelf, the dregs (not really), the might as well be pulp (just kidding) it's barely literature literature (again I kid) aka they're no Fitzgerald:
Smattering of authors, Kundera, Camus, random Modernists texts, and others round out this shelf. All great texts by great authors (except for the Hemingway), but not Henry James of F. Scott Fitzgerald to me. In my canon, it seems I have ranked them third tier, at least in this little microcosm. If the shelves were larger and fit more, these would be the books buried at the bottom of the others, because the likely hood of my wanting to pull off at random times is low.
Do we all in some way create a Canon of our own? I say yes. I doubt though that everyone displays it in the same manner which I unconsciously did, or do you?
Posts
The reason why Joyce and James aren't taught IS NOT because teachers feel that they are too difficult to teach, or whatever. The reason is that they are incomprehensible. I don't wanna slog through the Golden fucking Bowl or fucking Ulysses. Perhaps that makes me some hack who doesn't deserve his literary stripes, but JEEPERS. Sometimes I read those dudes and think that they've unintentionally entered the Bulwer-Lytton contest.
ReplyDeleteWe've had this chat before, oh so many moons ago, but I would reassert that authors who use the written word as a means of alienating their reading public create an aesthetic that prohibits social action and engagement, which is something that I would argue lies at the heart of a lot of great literatures. I would further assert that this alienation of the reader creates an artificial "hierarchy of letters," a caste system of the literary estate--one that is actually demonstrated by your bookshelf, which places pulp fiction on the bottom. FOR SHAME! This wacko hermeneutic prohibits the possibility of an anti-aesthetic that amounts to anything more than BLABLABLA. When folk don't know what these "kings of culture" are saying, there's no chance for them to play within the artifice of social narratives or mores. These authors perpetuate a hypertext that asserts, for many, that there is no possible way to engage in intellectual concerns. Their reaction, then, finds itself in perfect harmony with the mandate of the dominant discourse--and often utilizes teabags and signs with woeful grammatical oopses all over them.
To teach these two authors is to actually contribute to the fervor of anti-intellectualism that is so rampant in this po-mo apocalypse that we're living through.
Thank god for poets of the 17th-19th century for COMPLETELY avoiding the errors of those such as James and Joyce.
(Apologies for redacting my first four comments, but they contained errors that may offend the taste of a classy readership.)
Oh Doc! You are as always so AWESOME!
ReplyDeleteIf we were sitting in an office together or at a table in a coffee shop, good chance you would have a book thrown at your head--kidding--I don't throw books, haha. Sadly I do not recall such a conversation many moons ago.
I disagree with much of what you said. I do not think at all that James (and I will focus on him) is incomprehensible at all. In fact (and I owe this error to myself, should draft more prior to posting, learning lessons early--I should have said more on this above, but chose not to, I can see my error now) I do not agree with thought that they are too difficult to teach, I think it is a bunch of bunk, he is not, he should be taught, and taught often. Because his voice should be heard. Is it a tough read, no doubt, having read much of his writing, some of it is not easy, but that is part of the reward for reading him. He sharpens our reading and plays with our expecations of the contract between the author and reader if you will. "The Golden Bowl" is not a slog. It is brilliant and a worthwhile read--challenging yes, but most things that are worth something have a challenge attached to them, in my opinion.
On a side note, you are on hack, as you well know, sheesh.
Back to subject at hand, why is it such a negative to think that you have to work at reading something? James is not inaccessible or just for some band of elitist readers who think that they are better than everyone else. I think this is a fallacy attached to James. And one that limits the potential effect he can have on the readers--it makes people afraid/intimidated to pick up his books. And this is a shame. It is time to tear that misperception down. James does anything but limit "social action and engagement," in fact I would argue that he works in his books to motivate his readers towards something and not to just accept the normative values--he does anything but prohibit.
As for the "pulp fiction" at the bottom of the shelf, I was joking. No way would I ever consider Dos Passos or Kundera or Larsen or Camus pulp. Do I prefer to read James or Wharton or Fitzgerald over them? Yes. Hence the Canon of My Own title idea. Do I prefer texts that challenge me to think, that do not spoonfeed me ideas? Yes. I think in fact the placement of those authors at the top only advances anti-aesthetic principles. (You never read my final product did you? Well not final anymore but then it was, changes since.)
I do not understand your argument on how teaching James contributes to anti-intellectualism. Would you rather teach fan fiction? Since you bring up the "po-mo apocalypse." Is that the answer, to further shove the hyperaesthetic down the throats of the masses? Completely develop an unchallenged reader who moves along? James is condemned because he requires thought, his canon of work is so constructed in thought that a reader cannot even approach him without already thinking that he is elitist, too hard to read, and therefore not worth their time. Nothing like the hyperaesthetic limiting the reach of an author and doing the thinking for the reader.
You keep your William Blake and poets that are just as challenging as James, I would rather read my incomprehension in prose form.
I wrote in my post "Shameful" that James do not make it to many students because they are thought too hard. I think this shameful because this is a false constructed reading of the author and their texts. These are authors who should be taught and not have these type of limitations placed on them. But hey that is me. More on this at some later date.
ReplyDelete