but is it literature?

[ftah3]

> Tabouli:
> I'm reminded of this by Pippin's mention of story-telling power. 
> After some of
> my attempts to read the Literary Classics, I have to say that 
> "story-telling
> power" does not seem to be a prerequisite for membership into 
> this elite
> category. <<

This is not completely true, and I think is less definitive (i.e., 
not so much a matter of how the elite sophisticate determines 
literary canon) as it is purely subjective.  The fact is that much of 
literary canon comes from bygone eras and is written in a style that 
seems, to the modern mind, dry/boring/indecipherable/etc.  But even 
pulp fiction of those days would probably seem so, because while they 
might deal with more exciting or less deep or whatever subject 
matter, they will still follow certain stylistic, linquistic, 
historical & topical standards relating to the era in which they were 
written, making them rather dense to modern readers.  Jane Austen, 
for example, basically wrote pulp fiction for her time, but for 
reasons other than popularity or pulp content, she's considered a 
classic novelist today.

Also, not all literature termed 'classical'/canon is boring.  But 
it's a matter, again, of personal preference.  The right translation 
(i.e. Seamus Heaney's) of _Beowulf_ is entrancing, imho; _Tristram 
Shandy_ is fast-paced & a scream.  On the other hand, if I want to 
fall asleep fast, I'll read John Grisham (yawn).  Then again, I hate 
Faulkner and I think Hemingway wrote tripe, but Rowling is fab.  
*shrug*

> Pippin:
> The Lasting Value thing itself is problematic. It ties in with the 
> Protestant concept of Universalism which Tabouli mentioned in 
> another post. We hold the truth to be self-evident.  Scripture is 
> perfectly true therefore it must likewise be perfectly self-
evident, 
> and no Literary Types need apply. Lesser works admit of 
> interpretation, as they must neccessarily contain some dross. It 
> is then the job of the liberal arts scholar to discern the Truth 
and 
> Beauty they contain and interpret it for the masses, who lack the 
> education to do so themselves, having not been trained to 
> subdue their emotions either to Faith or to Reason.

I don't think this is entirely the root of the choosing of a 
classic.  Actually, it seems to me that part of the reason a work is 
deemed 'Lasting' is that it *does* have continued emotional impact.  
The way I have viewed literary canon (incomplete as it may be) is 
that it takes into account some or all of the following:

- concrete structure (i.e., it wasn't written by a monkey with a 
typewriter)

- representative content (i.e., how well does it represent the 
social/philosophical/literary/etc. movements of its era)

- originality (I don't know what else to call this ~ but for example, 
Mark Twain & James Joyce both broke stylistic rules in their works to 
[arguably, of course] extraordinary effect, and their works [again 
arguably] set a new standard for what would be accepted as legitimate 
literature)

- 'universal' meaning (which is not so narrow/elitist/xenophobic as 
it seems, if one takes into account that even across cultures love, 
hate, war, betrayal, greed, tragedy, etc. are common themes.  
Literary Canon is still short of multicultural examples, but not 
completely barren of them.  The main problem, in my opinion, is that 
literature from many cultures is recognized as classical, but that 
the American educational system, at least, is having a hard time 
trimming the Dead White European Guys from syllabi in order to fit in 
a more rounded selection.  Change Is Hard for the big wimps.)

- 'lasting' meaning (the emotional aspect.  i.e., does it 
still 'speak' to us even through the years....)

...among others.  The inherent problem is that given that old 
literature is *not* necessarily going to be popular with the modern 
masses (alas, all current writers are not Toni Morrison...and yes, I 
know that her place is literary canon is arguable...it's all bloody 
arguable, dammit!) because of the varying levels of archaic style and 
subject matter, those who care to plod through it all and study the 
heck out of it will make choices as to other admirable qualities.  It 
is, quite frankly, arbitrary, with only the fact that those who 
determine canon have at least studied the subject thoroughly to 
recommend it.
 
However,
Pippin:
> The classical standard is in the process of being replaced, at the 
> university level, by Postmodernist Deconstructionism, which 
> seems to measure everything according to its usefulness in 
> illuminating the power struggle between the WCEM's and 
> everybody else. So the classics can still be studied, but only to 
> reveal what the WCEM used to think about everybody else, and 
> also for possible subversive elements introduced by 
> non-WCEM's. Excellence is therefore of no critical concern and 
> awards are just a power grab anyway.

Even more arbitrary, if you ask me.  Literature is no longer 
worthwhile in and of itself, but only inasmuch as it demonstrates a 
point for whatever movement's ideology? Crap, imho. Ideological 
concepts have played a large part in determining canon to date, but I 
have a lot more faith in the opinions of an individual who gives me 
other reasons than the simply ideological in defence of 'great' 
literature than I do in someone whose only argument is based on the 
ideology/gender/nationality/culture of the writer/book.

And suddenly I'm having a 'but what do I know' moment....

Mahoney