Just read a marvelous piece called "What We Lose if We Lose the Canon" by Arthur Krystal. In this pointed essay, the author postures that as the canon changes and starts becoming commercialized, we are in danger of losing the idea of what makes literature great not just good. He defines great by that which makes us think (http://chronicle.com/article/What-We-Lose-if-We-Lose-the/150991/). He uses several examples of great authors including John Donne, Francis Bacon, Emily Dickinson, William Faulkner, Henry James, Shakespeare, Chekhov, Dickens, Tolstoy, among many others. He also makes brief reference to those authors that I assume "don't make us think" including Nora Roberts, James Lee Burke, Clive Cussler, even Pearl Buck.
Having spent a lifetime reading "great" and "good" and sometimes even poor literature, I certainly understand his position. He is not wrong that great literature, as defined by the test of time, the collective agreement from critics, and from usage in colleges and universities (my definitions, not his), makes us think. Great literature seems to have great emotional and psychological impact on the reader, causing us to return to the works, often many times. I have read and reread Les Miserables by Victor Hugo and will likely do so the rest of my life. I have not reread any Mickey Spillane, Louis L'Amour, John Steinbeck, or David Morrell nor will I do so. Not that I didn't thoroughly enjoy their books and believe I am shaped by their and many others' writings, but the writing style and stories served my purposes at the time and need no revisiting. Those writers did make me think (sorry to tell you that Mr. Krystal) and those writers did tell a great story, but, in general, I am now more impacted by "great" literature that is acknowledged as such.
I further agree with the author that as we put good authors on the same level as great authors, we risk not only losing history but also losing our sense of excellence. As he said, "Some books simply reflect a deeper understanding of the world, of history, of human relationships, of literature itself than do other books." In many special ways, great literature lifts us beyond the scope of everyday living and places us at a higher plane above the messiness and toward the sublime; whereas good literature or popular literature tends to emphasize current problems or personal issues of characters. All that to say, I generally agree with the author's concern about losing the canon of quality literature and replacing it with commercialized literature. Where I part ways with the author is in the area of holding on to the same canon and the resistance to altering it as the world marches forward in areas of refinement and progress. James Lee Burke may be somewhat short-lived as a writer of substance and his books may be considered popular fiction, but he is still a very fine writer and is worth considering for the "canon" of literature. Popularity, of course, does not automatically make something mediocre and as we work to present a new canon, we will inevitably miss the mark at times.
Such was true of Giacomo Meyerbeer, 1791-1864, a famed opera composer in the Romantic era of music, a composer destined for greatness whose music was highly regarded and expected to enter the canon. But, alas, his music did not withstand the test of time and is now relegated to very few performances mainly of some minor historical interest. This is normal and expected of most art and literature, but it does not mean we should focus our attention only on those works that made the list. In fact, a society that moves forward is that which searches for a new canon, a new body of works that encompasses the past, present, and the future. Furthermore, the canon the author describes is comprised primarily of white, mostly male, writers whose works have made some kind of impact on the world. But who decides this canon and why can it not change?
All music, art, and literature was new at one time and the market determined to an extent, right or wrong, its place in the world either as a short-lived work or for sustained benefit. We absolutely must keep pressing forward in the arts and in literature and search for a new canon that embraces the past greatness while seeking the new. We may miss the target and we could fall into the temporary trappings of commercialism, but time will ultimately prove the worth, and time will redefine the canon. Meanwhile, in spite of our failings, we must keep searching for a new canon, something that includes minorities, demonstrates diversity, and has significant meaning. The problem with criticizing commercialism in the arts and literature is that one inadvertently rejects the new and only loves the old. A proponent of both, I posture we continue to redefine the canon while seeking after truth, excellence, and meaning. Mostly, to reiterate, whether it is new or old, it should always make us think.
No comments:
Post a Comment