ML as a 'canon'?
kamins at dogeared.com
Thu Apr 12 15:41:24 EDT 2001
In your recent e-mail you said (in part):
>she does grump
>about the fact that they are mostly 'dead white
>guys.' This did, I tell her, reflect the status
>of the 'canon' at the time (20s, 30s, 40s, 50s).
Yeah. Look at the aforementioned (or at least referenced) "Great Books
[sic] of the Western World" or Harvard Classics - same thing, without any
20th century writers (to speak of) at all.
>But more to the point: I am not sure you could
>consider the ML at any particular time to be "the
>canon" or even a particularly great 'canon.'
Well, there certainly was a lot of junk; but with it came most of the
classics and a decent smattering of new stuff. Of course, the non-white
world was only given nodding inclusion, as your wife so correctly (if
>...Reading the ML
>provides you with at best a quirky 'liberal arts'
>education, based on the dictates of the market,
>fighting among rival publishers, copyright
>restrictions, and the personal quirks of the folks
>at Random House.
I'll retract my statement about getting a decent education from reading
[::Dorks. They're all dorks.::]
`\|||/ Scot Kamins
More information about the ModLib