Defining the term “Canon”: The Whys and Hows of Literature (Reaction Paper)

Literature, as traced back from the trenches of deep history, has forgone a long

quest of evolution and modification. As writers in the old times would say, “Literary

means not only what is written but what is voiced, what is expressed, what is invented,

in whatever form.” As such, literature varies in different ways as it attaches its

definition to the parcels of culture, human society, writers/novelists/historicists/critics,

time, and change. However, it has become a representation of quite a lot of debates and

pregnancy of ideas—until important front-liners of literature paved way to further

galvanize a set of literary works into wholesome thing that puts it all together: Canon.

Additionally, Arthur Krystal (2014) in his article entitled What is Literature? asserts that

Literature is referred to any writing formed with letters. Meanwhile, Canon is a set of

formalized literature created with a select body of imaginative writings—packed

together—from historic writers of Greek and Latin texts up to the modernity of age.

True as it may be, this does not invalidate the fact that literature has also been

taken for granted, not only re its definition, but its functional role in the society. As

Krystal adds, “Up until the eighteenth century, the only true makers of creative work

were poets, and what they aspired to was not literature but poesy.” This now leads

literature to evolve through the test of time in creative and formal platforms. However,

reflecting on the substantial details of canon and literature, I can really attest that long

before literature has come for its huge breakthrough, it has first undergone huge crisis

which I would like to ponder as this paper deepens through.

 To further the discourse, it was clearly stated that the Canon, as being adapted

from generation to generation, has failed to acknowledge the diversity of literature

across the world. To take a deeper understanding on this, canon might have been

believed to be biased as it mostly relied on Western culture, disregarding the

accountability of works from other culture, ethnicity, race, and gender. However, I must

also agree to the notion that we are not indebted to prohibit ourselves from patronizing

our “original canon”—as we are entitled to appreciate and carry by the literature of our

own homeland/country.

On the contrary, people must also realize that one way to eradicate the practice

of biases is to share the same amount of judgment and treatment to canonized books

which might have come from same genre, yet different origins and authors. As Emily

Kinder (2018) would say, “Anyone reading Conrad’s Heart of Darkness must be able to

recognize the racism within the narrative just as Hemingway’s hyper-masculinity and

misogyny in his writing should be noted.”

In addition, bringing those matters up on the table, canon seems to slowly give

us lucid directions about how it should be used in the arts and formal teaching—not

discounting the fact that long before it had been put to the spotlight, people were to

argue about what kind of canonized books and novels should be given higher priority

and standard. In light of this, literature usually goes along with what readers are mostly

interested about—they often entitle themselves in supporting a chunk of the canon

where they find entertainment and education most.

 Recognizing the realm of the canon in terms of its relationship with education, I

personally support that literature from other countries must also be equally touched

and tackled to pledge respect and sense of identity to their origin and authors. This

might be crucial since we are given the right, freedom, and power to choose what books

to use and live by, but schools must also start practicing a culture of praise for

canonized books from a multitude of references. I got these insights when I reflected on

the striking question over the last parts of Kinder’s The ‘literary canon’ throughout the

years, asking, “But who really should judge whether Shakespeare’s Hamlet is better than

Garcia Marquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude? Or whether Things Fall Apart by

Chinua Achebe should be studied over Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice?” The same

thought arises to me when I encountered the lines from Arthur Krystal’s What is

Literature? when he expounded “If books simply reinforced the cultural values that

helped shape them, then any old book or any new book was worthy of consideration.”

Looking into different perspective and angles about canon and its underlying

contexts in various societies and culture, it is indeed a valid point that no matter how

diverse literature can be, we are still united in the pursuit of learning and

transformation. It is inevitable that canon will be integrated and defined in so many

ways, yet what makes it instrumentally concrete are the important works and

masterpieces of individuals who I have mentioned above—as the foundation of an

undying evolution of canon, even in pedagogy. Moreover, these two articles are just

small justifications to a gargantuan experience we are about to take in as we, literature

students, who will be educators in the future, by God’s grace, embrace a massive and
transformative journey towards defining and applying canon on our own—someday

soon.

References:

Krystal, A. (2009). In Defense of the Canon. Retrieved

from https://harpers.org/archive/2014/03/what-is-literature/

Kinder, E. (2018). The Literary Canon through the Years. Retrieved

from https://theboar.org/2018/08/the-literary-canon-over-the-years/

Written by:

ROBERT CHRISTIAN R. AGUILAR

BS-ELE III, College of Education

Silliman University