FoolsCap

So here’s what I was thinking.

Why a canon?  Why the need for a list of great works?  Is the canon merely a historical catalogue of memorable works?  Or is it meant, rather, to indicate something about our culture?  (I interject here–of course the canon, in practice, indicates things about our culture; my question is whether it is constructed to achieve that aim or whether cultural indices are a by-product of having a canon in the first place.)

Why some works and not others?  Why are some works eventually weeded out of the canon?  How do others become canonical?  What makes a work worthy of canonization?  Is it still reasonable to expect a familiarity with the canon?  How do canons compete with, compliment, and complete each other?

What books form the modern canon?  What do I mean by modern?  Let’s say anything after 1970–what texts would form a canon for the last three and a half decades?  Is a "modern canon" even possible, or does the idea of canonization carry some implication of time-testedness? 

 How has the impulse toward multiculturalism influence the canon?  Some works have been reintroduced to readers under the noble idea of giving voice to otherwise "silenced" groups.  Do these form part of the recognized canon or can we construe them as a sort of "sub-canon" that we use to provide response voices to the dominant canonical voices?

So many questions, so few answers. . . .