The Role of the Literary Canon in English Studies

For decades, the literary canon has played a role in the development and curriculum of English studies. English theorists disagree on the specific purpose of the canon, although they all believe that it is a critical component of the English major curriculum. Theorists concur that the canon’s role is to educate students and give them a well-rounded view of literature, regardless of how many English classes the student participates in during the course of his or her college career. While the canon’s role may have shifted and changed over time, the future of the canon is still unknown. Speculations surrounding its future exist, although some ideas prove more accurate than others. Robert Scholes argues that the literary canon is used to study writing and that people who study will “become better writers because they have done so…” (116). Many theorists agree with this proposition. If this is the “true” purpose of the canon, how will its future be influenced? Will the canon be forced to adjust as culture changes and student interest shifts? Many scholars believe that the canon itself is in jeopardy, but several theorists make a convincing argument that the canon is going to be around for a long time, although its contents may be altered slightly.

Robert Scholes states, “One of the uses of the best writers from the past (not the only one, but one) is that they provide models of syntactic and semantic possibilities. […] Students who are encouraged not only to read the major texts of the past but to pastiche and parody their styles will do a better job of getting inside the heads of those writers, and they themselves become better writers because they have done so…” (116). Scholes believes that the canon exists to influence students in both their reading and their writing. He proposes that it is by thorough study of the canon that students are able to become better writers, and that in order to advance in English studies students must thoroughly acknowledge the works of their predecessors.

Scholes’ reasoning is logical on several levels. Studying the best to become the best is a reasonable endeavor, and is a practice employed by many other fields. Law students study great lawyers and famous case trials, musicians study Beethoven and Mozart, and scientists study Newton and Isaac. The only way to improve ones own writing or ones own practice, whatever it may be, is to research and thoroughly examine the forefathers of that field, whoever they may be. This studying and contemplation will make way for great production in the scholar’s chosen field.

David Richter agrees with Scholes that the canon is important, although his reasons for importance vary: “Canonical works become canonical because human beings read them and love them, but we cannot read and love works to which we have no access. To be read, a book must first be published, reviewed, and publicized” (6). Richter believes the canon holds importance simply as something that humans love and ought to share with future generations. He believes that the current canon is something that should be gifted to future generations, to both influence and teach them as it has influenced and taught generations past.

Richter believes that the main problem with the uncertainty surrounding the canon’s future is that there is much disagreement in deciding what it should and should not include. Many of these disputes could be solved if all parties involved agreed on the main purpose of the literary canon, but Richter argues that the disagreement is where scholars should start. He believes that “moving from one teacher to another, one eventually gets the idea that these fundamental issues are up for grabs, but it may be more efficient – and more satisfying – to start with a primer on the subjects about which all the experts disagree” (11). By finding the disagreements about literature, it becomes more possible to determine what should and should not be included in the English Major’s literary canon. Disagreements lead way to agreement by actively seeking solutions to determining what is and is not important and critical literature for English students to engage themselves in.

Unlike Scholes and Richter, James A. Berlin doesn’t seem to feel that the disagreement about the canon’s purpose is something that should be debated about until resolved. Instead, he believes that the canon should be accepted for what it is: something that teaches students about history and about life. Berlin states: “…we must realize that the poetic text is neither more nor less important than the rhetorical text simply because it offers an esthetic dimension. Throughout history, one never makes sense without the other. Of equal importance, the effects of the two are never mutually exclusive” (100). Berlin argues that the purpose of the canon is to educate and inform, but also to give students a well-rounded understanding of different styles of literature, composition, and story-telling. Berlin believes that in order to be a well-rounded scholar, one must study literature, and he’s not mistaken.

Berlin contends that the canon was created not only to promote literacy, but to produce scholars who are well-versed and well-rounded citizens. Berlin states, “In other words, to argue that discourse other than this narrowly defined literary category be taken seriously – either for consumption or production – was to be hostile to the truly literary” (8). Based on an understanding of the literary canon’s origin, it can be concluded that the canon’s purpose is to educate and inform scholars of the issues facing citizens during different time periods. If a student studied Shakespeare, he or she would begin to learn about the time period in which Shakespeare wrote, as well as how the life of a courtier worked, and how love occurred during the era. If a student was a scholar of Milton, he or she would begin to create an understanding of the world that Milton was a part of – work force, dress, and daily relations. These are the functions of the canon as defined by our theorists, and when fulfilled, the scholar benefits greatly.

While the purpose of the canon seems to be fully understood, the future of the canon may be in jeopardy. Richter is well aware of this and says:

Those who reject the current canon, however, cannot decide whether it should simply be

expanded to include more women and minority writers or whether all canonization of

literary texts – all claims that certain works are “classics” whose appeal is unbounded by

time and place – should be dropped on the grounds that every choice of what should or

should not be read is an implicitly political act (6).
The future of the canon may be debatable because American culture has changed so incredibly since the implementation of the canon itself. While “great literary works” were once easily agreed upon and the purpose of the canon was absolutely clear, the concept of “great” or “wonderful” or “worth studying” is now an objectionable topic that many theorists and scholars alike are finding fault with.

Simon During, a literary theorist, comments on the situation by saying: “Today, a student is no longer a blank to be filled by education, but a developed personality making rational choices. This permits the academy to move away from its aim to inculcate students with an autonomous, balanced personhood based on the reading of a traditional canon” (102). During seems to reinforce the belief that the canon may be altered as scholars themselves begin to change and find new interest in different types of literary works. While scholars once held the goal of becoming knowledgeable by studying the works of “great” writers, students now have newfound interest in studying more “modern” works that apply to their everyday lives. Many students believe stories such as Paradise Lost or Gulliver’s Travels to be outdated or inapplicable to their own lives, unlike scholars of the past who were filled with understanding in relation to these works and who were able to relate them to all forms of daily life.

Daisy Miller is one example of a literary text that many students feel should no longer be a part of the literary canon. While the story itself offers insight to life during a certain time period, many scholars feel that the story itself offers no particular advantage in understanding the people who lived during that era. Others argue that any story that has been a part of the canon obviously was selected because of its great influence and ought to continue to be a part of the English major curriculum. During’s argument seems to most accurately fit when faced with the question of whether Daisy Miller deserves its place in the literary canon of English studies. Students who have learned to think for themselves and who are aware of their own educational goals may feel that having a preselected canon may not influence them as greatly as the selectors of the canon had hoped for.

The future of the canon depends most greatly on the ideals and intentions of students who are studying English. Their goals dictate what novels and poems must be studied in order to develop the ability to critically analyze the English language in all its uses. How the canon will exist in years to come cannot be predicted because it depends solely on the attitudes and goals of the scholars who will be studying it. The English students of today are not the English students of tomorrow, and the canon will be forced to adjust and adapt with each changing generation as the outlooks and perspectives of life’s goals and purposes change with each new student.

During is the theorist who most accurately understands the future of the canon and its role in student development. As with any good idea, the literary canon must adjust as generations grow and gain new knowledge about the world surrounding them and about the creators of literature. If the canon does not change to meet the needs of new students, it will be defying the laws of evolution in its refusal to adjust and will become obsolete. If the canon is modified, however slightly, with the intent of reaching new students and of influencing future generations, it will be able to survive for decades to come.

WORKS CITED
Berlin, James. Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, 2003.
Richter, David. Falling Into Theory. 2nd Ed. Boston, MA: 2003.
Scholes, Robert. “A Fortunate Fall?” Richter. 111-119.
During, Simon. “Teaching Culture.” Richter. 96-102.