Today is the annual Pacific Rim Literary Conference at the University of Alaska, Anchorage. This year's topic is called "Shakespeare in the Bush" (or something like that) and addresses the idea of teaching literature from the "canon" to students in what are often considered "marginalized" cultures. Being a life-long Alaskan but not an Alaskan native by heritage, I find myself more attached to the rich culture of my state instead of aligning myself with the good ole "white man way" of my familial past. The question of canonical items has long been one I've toyed with. I remember receiving a list of the "Top 100 books to read for college-bound high school students" when I was a junior at East Anchorage High. My honors English instructor gave us this list with the expressed sentiment that we should work to read every one of these important texts over the summer if we truly wanted to be successful in college. Well, let me tell you!! As the first family member planning to attend college directly out of high school, I took what she said to heart (I mean, lets face it, she was the "expert") and proceeded to the local library to check out several of the texts even before summer break began. I was also duly impressed with myself to find that I had read at least 10 of the books already so that meant I was ahead of the game -- go me!
As I began to plow my way through "Jane Eyre," "The Bell Jar," and "Waiting for Godot" I found myself becoming less enamored with the idea that some books are better than others. Truly, what was wrong with my reading "Misty of Chincoteague" or "Black Beauty" if I wanted to? Why were these books less "important" than the others? My eyes crossing from trying to figure out "Godot" and my heart weighed down by Plath's depressing "Bell Jar," I came to realize that it would rather read volumes of books that inspired me than one book that someone else told me was "great literature."
Now, almost 30 years later, I have read more of those canonical texts but, primarily, none of them by choice. As my interests have changed and expanded, I have sought out new texts to inspire me and, sometimes, that leads me to one of those books my teacher recommended. Still, as I read them, I do so looking for mental challenge and inspiration, not because someone else considered the text worthy of passing on to the next generation. There are so many wonderful texts out there -- text which never make that "Top 100" list that spans the ages -- that I have no time to take in everything. I would much rather read a text based on the recommendation of a good friend or a fellow librarian than depending on a list created by someone sitting alone, locked in their dark, little world of ancient literature, scrutinizing texts as their eyes grow increasingly dim, and comparing each line to some predisposed list of "rules" which define whether or not the text is worthy of placement on the almighty Canon.
For me, it comes down to this -- the difference between capital 'C' (Canon/Culture) and small 'c' (canon/culture). The Oxford English Dictionary (Canonical dictionary if ever I've seen one), defines "Culture" (my sense of Canon) as "1) worship;reverential homage; 2) the training, development, and refinement of mind, tastes, and manners." Johanna Smith, in her essay "What is Cultural Criticism" defines "culture" (canon) as "popular, folk, urban, and mass (mass-produced, -disseminated, -mediated, and -consumed) culture, as well as the culture we associate with the sol-called classics." Smith goes on to differentiate culture as I have, capital 'C' versus small 'c.' To steal from Smith, I stretch this to my 'canon' -- one that encompasses the classic texts AND popular texts, children's literature, or anything else I find -- as long as it inspires and challenges!
No comments:
Post a Comment