tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post114286990845792374..comments2024-03-28T11:03:41.050-05:00Comments on Unlocked Wordhoard: On Literary CanonizationDr. Richard Scott Nokeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01348275071082514870noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1143177419016208802006-03-23T23:16:00.000-06:002006-03-23T23:16:00.000-06:00I'm a little late to this - and properly speaking,...I'm a little late to this - and properly speaking, as a historian, I probably don't have much ground to stand on here - but the "mulligan" text is intriguing. I actually have a hard time with the idea of the text that you can't defend but just love - on what grounds is the text to be defended? What makes a text just plain awful? (I know, it's really obnoxious of the historian to step into this morass.) I have a hard time teaching anything I can't defend for SOME reason. It's just that there are lot of texts that are "terrible," in terms of aesthetics or enjoyment, but really valuable to study nonetheless - depending on what questions you want to answer by reading them. (Which, duh, is the whole issue of the canon, which thankfully isn't really something historians have to deal with. Not quite, anywway.)<BR/><BR/>FWIW, I don't buy the access to the universal argument, either, although I'm not critiquing it (being a historian and all!).I guess to use an example like <I>The Wanderer</I> - yes, it makes me feel that loneliness, BUT for me what's more significant is what causes the narrator to feel that loneliness, which is NOT universal, but specific to a particular time and place, and is completely different from my own feelings of loneliness. Sure, I can get loneliness, but I *can't* ever get loneliness caused by losing one's lord/family/connection to society <I>in that specific way</I>. To me, it's more valuable for telling me what made Anglo-Saxons lonely, than for being an expression of loneliness. If that makes any sense. <BR/><BR/>Again, sorry for butting into the party late. My excuse for commenting at all is that medievalists are all pretty interdisciplinary anyway, so I get to have opinions on things I outside of my field proper. ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1143073344982842662006-03-22T18:22:00.000-06:002006-03-22T18:22:00.000-06:00Cappy, ::cheekpinch:: That's adorable! The rest o...Cappy, ::cheekpinch:: That's adorable! <BR/><BR/>The rest of you bring up interesting points that I'll have to consider.<BR/><BR/>But, you do get that the rood didn't actually write that poem, yes? Our opinions on the content of literature is probably a whole nother can of worms, and I make it a habit to limit my worm-cans.Heohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15790601758953554870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1143062351731662702006-03-22T15:19:00.000-06:002006-03-22T15:19:00.000-06:00Dear Prof. Nokes,The truth is that I can't stand m...Dear Prof. Nokes,<BR/><BR/><I>The truth is that I can't stand most of the big names in medieval Christian mysticism, be they male, female, or other.</I><BR/><BR/>That's intriguing! It sounds to me as though your gripe is with medieval Christian mysticism in general rather than with Julian as a particular and female writer?<BR/><BR/><I>I would be surprised if someone with the word "Ancrene" in her pseudonym didn't like Christian mysticism.</I><BR/><BR/>Ha! Well, yes, I guess that's a dead giveaway, all right. Oddly enough, though, I really don't work much with the mystics and haven't read them in years.<BR/><BR/>I like your idea of the "mulligan text." Shameless hussy that I am, I feel almost no guilt about my hedonistic delight in certain types of plain awfulness, but I <I>do</I> feel bad about foisting such things on an entire class of hapless students. In that arena, it's probably best to practice a little restraint.Ancrene Wiseasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02075637582360688845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1143039420565005782006-03-22T08:57:00.000-06:002006-03-22T08:57:00.000-06:00'Here I see a set of assumptions that practically ...'Here I see a set of assumptions that practically demand HeoCwaeth and I disagree. She sees the inclusion of medieval women writers into the Canon as the central issue, whereas I see the inclusion of works by said writers into the Canon as the central issue.'<BR/><BR/>I don't think so really. Apologies in advance for 'going cosmic', but the problem is that the Canon, as such, is not a repository of fixed truths but instead is a contingent entity.<BR/><BR/>The 'problem', as such, is the concept of 'Canonisation', which, because of the nature of the beast, is bound to represent the contingent 'truths' of any given time. <BR/><BR/>The clamour for the inclusion of medieval women writers in the Canon is a reflex of the increasing empowerment of women in modern society - not a realignment of the concept of what 'Canon' is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1143039216327271332006-03-22T08:53:00.000-06:002006-03-22T08:53:00.000-06:00Ancrene,The truth is that I can't stand most of th...Ancrene,<BR/><BR/>The truth is that I can't stand most of the big names in medieval Christian mysticism, be they male, female, or other. I'm not really sure why this would be, since I like a lot of mystical texts, and a lot of Christian texts. I would be surprised if someone with the word "Ancrene" in her pseudonym didn't like Christian mysticism.<BR/><BR/>As for enjoying texts that are "actually plain awful," of course we all have our guilty pleasures. I also think professors deserve one mulligan per semester -- the right to teach one work that they cannot defend, but just love.<BR/><BR/>And, of course, the Canon isn't as static as we've been making it out to be, as Jeff points out; it has very fuzzy edges. Things fall into and out of the Canon all the time, though the process is pretty complicated (and somewhat commercial). Perhaps "The Economics of Canon Formation" would make a good future post.Dr. Richard Scott Nokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01348275071082514870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1143013238316887302006-03-22T01:40:00.000-06:002006-03-22T01:40:00.000-06:00I disagree with you on several fronts, I'm afraid....I disagree with you on several fronts, I'm afraid. <BR/><BR/>First, the idea that it's certain <I>works</I> which make up the canon doesn't really seem to play out in the application. At many institutions, after all, we find courses on "Milton," "Shakespeare," and "Chaucer" in the catalogs and graduate-level exam reading lists frequently include "The complete works of XXX" as a line item. <BR/><BR/>Second, I don't agree that literature should--or even <I>can</I>--be a particularity which provides access to universality. Supposed universalities usually are, after all, surprisingly non-universal. Laura Bohannon's article, "Shakespeare in the Bush," does a good job of putting paid to the idea that Shakespeare's work is universal, for example.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, canons are not, to my understanding, a list of works which provide access to well expressed universals. They're a list of works which the majority of people in the position to do the choosing--and yes, for a very long time, most of those people were white guys, and yes, that did have a lot to do with what made it onto the list--agree are of such importance that educated people ought to know about them.<BR/><BR/>Much of our disagreement on these points probably has to do with our wanting different things from literature. For example, what attracts me to the medieval period is not a sense that I will be able to connect with medieval people in a truly fundamental way through their literature. I am attracted to medieval literature precisely because it is different and challenging--it does not allow me to think that the world has "always" been any particular way or that people have "always" reacted to their world in any particular way. In addition, I frequently enjoy texts which aren't just "mediocre," but actually plain awful, because they're valuable in ways that don't boil down to aesthetics.<BR/><BR/>Which is not to say that I don't enjoy a good aesthetic. In fact, I'm surprised to learn that you dislike Julian of Norwich precisely because I find her <I>Showings</I> not only culturally fascinating, but also stunningly beautiful and deeply moving. And if you value attempts to express human universalities, a texts which seeks to explore the nature of the universe and our relationship to it surely counts for something?Ancrene Wiseasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02075637582360688845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1142990563532993022006-03-21T19:22:00.000-06:002006-03-21T19:22:00.000-06:00What's interesting (and surprising) to me about th...What's interesting (and surprising) to me about this disagreement is that both of you are talking about the medieval literary "canon" as if it's much more inflexible in practice than it actually is.<BR/><BR/>Heck, even when putting together a syllabus we have enormous leeway; there's far more good stuff than we can pack into one career or one curriculum. For example, this semester I added "Havelok the Dane" to my survey course--but I <I>could</I> have opted to include Julian of Norwich. These and other choices can be praised or condemned for a variety of reasons--including the "ars longa, vita brevis" defense of a more conservative canon championed in the above post--but unless things have changed since my pre-adjunct grad-school days, the medieval-lit field seems fairly open to researching lesser-known works and seeing what can be done with them. So I wonder: Is there really a medieval-lit "canon," or are there merely a few canonical works and lots of gray areas?Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06014378351645909573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1142958107080271922006-03-21T10:21:00.000-06:002006-03-21T10:21:00.000-06:00ah, "hell hath no fury," and all that. that's all...ah, "hell hath no fury," and all that. that's all I need to know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com