I (obviously) don't know about you, but anyone who is trying to speak with a degree of authority about quality and literature should be able to, like, y'know, like be able to like express themselves without like sounding "like" a Californian bubblehead.
I think you've misunderstood my rejoinder. A Canon is prescriptive. To defend a cultural prescription makes one inherently conservative. One could be fighting to conserve a particular worldview that isn't right-wing in content (e.g. much of the Western Canon promulgates ideas that we identify with Liberalism).
The type of variation in the Canon is greatly exaggerated. There is little variation when referring to core texts from Homer, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare, etc.
I don't know who has misunderstood what, but if you don't think there's very much variation between Homer, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare then there's not much more to say.
Again, you're misunderstanding. What legitimate Canon exists that doesn't include those texts? There's no one defending an alternative. This is also ignoring my point about Canons themselves being prescriptive and thus defending prescription they become conservative ventures. There is nothing revolutionary or liberating about setting a standard and enforcing it.
Well, not sure what to make of this. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, when the opinions are based on air rather than research, there is a problem. It all seems a bit thin and reductive much like her example of Cheryl Sandberg's success. Like wow! Anyone who knows anything about Larry Summers would have to come to the conclusion that Summers failed to learn from Sandberg whose reputation remains intact unlike his! Summers is the co-architect of the removal of the financial regulation called the Glass-Steagall Act, which was put in place in 1933 to protect us from another 1929 type depression — and the removal of it in 1999 did just that! There is a direct line from the removal of that regulation to the financial crisis of 2008 that brought the world to its knees! Then to make things worse Obama kept Summers on as an advisor to clean up the mess HE created! Well, yeah, some very smart people are saying there is a direct line from that to our current political mess. Who needs facts and details?
I think I'll pass on an author who declares at the beginning of the interview that she will unsubscribe from any Substack author who publishes their fiction on Substack — she would rather just buy a book, only to say at the end of the interview that she will be publishing her novella on Substack! Cheers!
The Canon is necessarily "right-wing" to the extent it is both revisionist and prescriptive about what a given culture is. It is an anointing process that defines the ethical and aesthetic standards of the past, present, and future. This is why it has been attacked by the modern Left. Their vision is not a significant part of what's emerged as the Western Canon (liberalism is but not today's Left).
How is it just assertion? What is "The Academy" or "The Canon" then? You're dismissing what quite plainly is the implicit (if not explicit) authority of social institutions.
The idea that the canon is the result of the "authority of social institutions" is a major assumption, as is the idea that a canon prescribes anything about a culture.
If we're literal about it, the Canon is a collection of sacred texts. It is the source of what will be understood as dogma when translated by the priestly class and communicated to the masses. The same ideas attend a literary Canon. It's the whole reason we append "Western" before the word because it refers to the collection of texts we understand as both reflecting and illustrating what it means to be Western. We can argue about whether the Western Canon is dead or not (or like what is or isn't a part of it), but this is unrelated to what the idea of the Canon is.
Ms. Kanakia makes a good point in saying there's nothing intrinsically "right-wing" about great books. If you examine the curriculum of great book schools like St. Johns, you would find that the list of great books is not unchanging and is not necessarily exclusively dead white dudes. Knowing where one's culture comes from might provide a greater understanding of current issues.
this is interesting, famous writers suffer down time but some writer who happen to be famous can be boring
I (obviously) don't know about you, but anyone who is trying to speak with a degree of authority about quality and literature should be able to, like, y'know, like be able to like express themselves without like sounding "like" a Californian bubblehead.
If you want to leave these sorts of insipid personal comments, find another blog to post them on!
I think you've misunderstood my rejoinder. A Canon is prescriptive. To defend a cultural prescription makes one inherently conservative. One could be fighting to conserve a particular worldview that isn't right-wing in content (e.g. much of the Western Canon promulgates ideas that we identify with Liberalism).
The type of variation in the Canon is greatly exaggerated. There is little variation when referring to core texts from Homer, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare, etc.
I don't know who has misunderstood what, but if you don't think there's very much variation between Homer, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare then there's not much more to say.
Again, you're misunderstanding. What legitimate Canon exists that doesn't include those texts? There's no one defending an alternative. This is also ignoring my point about Canons themselves being prescriptive and thus defending prescription they become conservative ventures. There is nothing revolutionary or liberating about setting a standard and enforcing it.
Well, not sure what to make of this. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, when the opinions are based on air rather than research, there is a problem. It all seems a bit thin and reductive much like her example of Cheryl Sandberg's success. Like wow! Anyone who knows anything about Larry Summers would have to come to the conclusion that Summers failed to learn from Sandberg whose reputation remains intact unlike his! Summers is the co-architect of the removal of the financial regulation called the Glass-Steagall Act, which was put in place in 1933 to protect us from another 1929 type depression — and the removal of it in 1999 did just that! There is a direct line from the removal of that regulation to the financial crisis of 2008 that brought the world to its knees! Then to make things worse Obama kept Summers on as an advisor to clean up the mess HE created! Well, yeah, some very smart people are saying there is a direct line from that to our current political mess. Who needs facts and details?
I think I'll pass on an author who declares at the beginning of the interview that she will unsubscribe from any Substack author who publishes their fiction on Substack — she would rather just buy a book, only to say at the end of the interview that she will be publishing her novella on Substack! Cheers!
The Canon is necessarily "right-wing" to the extent it is both revisionist and prescriptive about what a given culture is. It is an anointing process that defines the ethical and aesthetic standards of the past, present, and future. This is why it has been attacked by the modern Left. Their vision is not a significant part of what's emerged as the Western Canon (liberalism is but not today's Left).
the canon is not "prescriptive about what a given culture is" nor is it an anointing process, this is all just assertion
How is it just assertion? What is "The Academy" or "The Canon" then? You're dismissing what quite plainly is the implicit (if not explicit) authority of social institutions.
The idea that the canon is the result of the "authority of social institutions" is a major assumption, as is the idea that a canon prescribes anything about a culture.
If we're literal about it, the Canon is a collection of sacred texts. It is the source of what will be understood as dogma when translated by the priestly class and communicated to the masses. The same ideas attend a literary Canon. It's the whole reason we append "Western" before the word because it refers to the collection of texts we understand as both reflecting and illustrating what it means to be Western. We can argue about whether the Western Canon is dead or not (or like what is or isn't a part of it), but this is unrelated to what the idea of the Canon is.
You're not providing an alternative here either.
Ms. Kanakia makes a good point in saying there's nothing intrinsically "right-wing" about great books. If you examine the curriculum of great book schools like St. Johns, you would find that the list of great books is not unchanging and is not necessarily exclusively dead white dudes. Knowing where one's culture comes from might provide a greater understanding of current issues.