2 Exclusion and Inclusion: The “Canon” and Its Discontents

Who Decides What Is/Isn’t Literature?

Now that we have at least somewhat clarified the definition of literature, who decides what works are or are not literature? Historically speaking, kings, queens, publishers, literary critics, professors, colleges, and readers (like you!) have decided which works survive and which works do not.

As problematic as he was (historians feel he “invented racism”), the classical Greek philosopher Aristotle was possibly one of the first writers to attempt to decide what works fall into the category of literature, and what works do not. While Aristotle was most famous for his (sometimes troublesome) contributions to science and philosophy, he is also considered one of the first literary critics. A literary critic is a person who studies and analyzes literature. A literary critic produces scholarship called literary criticism.

When a work is decided by critics and scholars to constitute literature in this traditional way, it enters something called the Canon. Not to be confused with the large metal tube that shoots bombs popular in the 16th through the 19th centuries (“cannon”), the Literary Canon is a collection of works that are considered literature. A work that falls into this designation is called canonical.

However, there is no “official” literary Canon; it’s just an idea supported by critical tradition and reinforced in both academic and commercial sectors. In Western Literature (works associated with the western hemisphere and primarily in European languages), the idea of a literary “Canon” seems to have stemmed both from anxiety about contemporary culture not being as rich as classical (Greek and Roman) culture and a desire to let the critics tell you what’s worth reading and what isn’t. In a 2014 article in Harper’s Magazine titled “What Is Literature: In Defense of the Canon,” Arthur Krystal writes that “the canon formalized modern literature as a select body of imaginative writings that could stand up to the Greek and Latin texts” and “anointed the worthy and, by implication, the unworthy, functioning as a set of commandments that saved people the trouble of deciding what to read.” American scholar and literary critic Harold Bloom argued in his 1994 book The Western Canon that “one breaks into the canon only by aesthetic strength, which is constituted primarily of an amalgam: mastery of figurative language, originality, cognitive power, knowledge, exuberance of diction.”

One can often see this idea of a literary Canon just by browsing the shelves at a bookstore (if those still exist). It is often the case that works of fiction are divided into genres (mystery, romance, science fiction and fantasy, etc.) as well as a separate section that’s just “fiction.” However, there’s often a separate selection, usually much, much smaller, that is labeled “literature” or “classics.” What ends up in that section is really up to the publishers and bookstore operators–they put stuff wherever they think it’s going to sell the best.

The Problem with the Canon

Whether a text is literary or not is not as important as the methods of analyzing texts. In fact, texts which have historically been excluded from the Canon are often argued back in through such analysis. Part of what makes analyzing literature so fun is that it means the definition of literature is always up for debate. This is especially important given the history of the Canon.

In an ideal world, literature would be celebrated purely based on its artistic merit. Well-written works would last, poorly-written works would wither from public memory. However, that is not always the case. Works often achieve public prominence or survive based on qualities unrelated to skill or aesthetics, such as an author’s fame, wealth, connections, or acceptance by the dominant culture. William Wordsworth, for example, was named Poet Laureate of England and has been taught as one of the “Big Six” major Romantic-era authors ever since. Indeed, he is accepted as part of the Romanticism Literary Canon. One would be hard-pressed to find a literature anthology that does not feature William Wordsworth. However, how many people have read or heard of Dorothy Wordsworth, William Wordsworth’s sister, who arguably depicted Romantic themes with equal skill and beauty? Or James Hogg, a Scottish contemporary of Wordsworth who was a lower-class shepherd? Similarly, while most readers have encountered F. Scott Fitzgerald or Edgar Allen Poe in their high school literature classes, how many have read Frederick Douglass or Charles Chesnutt in these same classes?

In short, all artistic skill (arguably) considered equal, why do some authors predominantly feature in the Canon while others do not?

As a cultural relic, similar to art, many scholars suggest literature is a reflection of the society which produces it. This includes positive aspects of society (championing values such as love, justice, and good triumphing over evil), but it can also reflect negative aspects of society (such as discrimination, racism, sexism, homophobia, historical lack of opportunity for marginalized authors).

For example, enslaved Africans were often prevented from learning to read and write as a form of control. When Phillis Wheatley published her book of poetry, Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral (1773) she had to defend the fact that she wrote it, due to popularly held racist views that slaves were incapable of writing poetry. Later, Frederick Douglass wrote about how his enslavers banned him from reading and writing, as they realized “education and slavery were incompatible with each other” (Douglass). He later championed his learning to read and write as the means which conveyed him to freedom. However, even when trying to publish The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (1845) his publishers were forced to prove that it was, in fact, an enslaved person who wrote the story and not a white man who wrote it for him. Slave owners actively attempted to keep this book from circulation as it threatened the institution of slavery upon which they depended. Indeed, to this day, Douglass’ book continues to be banned in some prisons for its potential to incite revolution (Darby, Gilroy).

How could Black writers enter the canon en masse if they were not allowed to read or write? Or if they were forced to spend all of their waking hours working? And if those who had the means to read and write had to jump through absurd hoops just to have their works published? And if even those texts which were published were banned?

Similarly, throughout much of Western history, women have been discouraged from pursuing reading and writing, as it distracted from society’s expectations for women to focus on motherly and household duties. Until the 1700s, women were not allowed to go to college. Even then, very few went: only the extremely wealthy. It was not until the 19th century that women attended college in representative numbers. Virginia Woolf wrote in A Room of One’s Own that if there are fewer works of literature written by women, it is only because society, historically, has not given women the time, education, funding, or space to do so. In this extended essay, she describes an imaginary sister of William Shakespeare who could have been just as great of a writer had she the same opportunities as her brother.

“I told you in the course of this paper that Shakespeare had a sister; but do not look for her in Sir Sidney Lee’s life of the poet. She died young—alas, she never wrote a word. She lies buried where the omnibuses now stop, opposite the Elephant and Castle. Now my belief is that this poet who never wrote a word and was buried at the cross-roads still lives. She lives in you and in me, and in many other women who are not here tonight, for they are washing up the dishes and putting the children to bed. But she lives; for great poets do not die; they are continuing presences; they need only the opportunity to walk among us in the flesh. This opportunity, as I think, it is now coming within your power to give her.”

Woolf argues that in our time those who have been excluded from literature can now join the canon by adding their voices. The inequity of representation in literature – which has arguably improved, but in many ways persists today – can be remedied if more people from a wide array of backgrounds and walks of life are empowered to study and create Literature. That is one reason why the current study of literature is so exciting. As a budding literary scholar, you have the power to influence culture through your reading and analysis of literature.