FoolsCap

As the title says:

p.  533: "The right books are literature.  [. . . .] And it was much later still that I even thought to ask who made the lists [. . . .]"

What makes canonical texts "right?"  Again, I don’t have an answer but Brodkey raises a question that interests me.  To a degree, its all a matter of cultural consensus of course, and yet I think attempts to revise the canon are. . .well, misguided is too strong a word, perhaps, but I think we need to look at the economic and sociopolitical origins of the canon before critiquing it.  Which is to say that (as an eventual dead white male) I don’t believe the traditional composition of the canon evinces a culturally hegemonic agenda.  Yes, of course, much of the canon is awfully pale, but the impression I sometimes get from reading commentaries on the canon is that the traditional canon was accepted as a way to maintain a certain hegemony, and I don’t think that’s the case.  Sure, it has developed in such a way as to exclude authors of color, women, sexual minorities. . .but I don’t think that an activist revision of the canon will work.  I think works that  speak to these voices (and, of course, speak within the discourse of the canon itself) will find their way into the canon naturally.  It may take a while, granted, but I remain optimistic it will happen.

p. 534: "Literature is an acquired taste [. . . .]"

It is, and how do we help people acquire the taste?  In part, I think it’s a matter of matching readers with the right texts.  The Scarlet Letter is not for everyone, but it’s right for someone.  Not me, God knows, but someone must like it, right?

p. 534: "What was my stake in the great books [. . .]?"

Just assume that I reiterate my comments above, and then I add this: Reading of any sort only becomes important to someone once they’ve internalized something of value from their relationship to the text, and, after reading Harris and scanning some 1020 syllabi, I think one of the ways to do that is to use texts that students will react to.  I don’t think the pieces have to be all about being a freshman comp student, but it makes sense to me that they must force a reaction from the student reader: sympathy, outrage, insight–something.

I’ve been thinking a lot about what my own aim shall be in teaching 1020 (apart from the dept’s aims) and what I’ve established so far is this: I want to inculcate in my students an awareness that reading a text (any sort of text) and writing are complementary activities.  Reading only properly occurs when one engages a text and responds to it, even if the response is only written in your thoughts about what is offered.

p. 534: "[. . .] [S]uch mundane matters as the labor of literary production–the work of writing, placing, selecting, editing, printing, marketing, and distributing books–were thought to be distasteful [. . . .]"

I think, based on the readings many of us in 6010 are doing in 7010, we can see that this is changing.  A certain regard for the material text is becoming evident, and I am viscerally compelled toward this field of study.  I think too that New Media approaches to comp and lit both have made many of question the tangible qualities and expectations we bring to a text.

p. 535: "[. . .] I set out to police my family, whose knowledge of and interest in literature I found sadly lacking."

Without too much navel-gazing. . .I come from working-class [well, let’s say upper-working class] stock like Brodkey, and I will be the first in my family to attend grad school, just as I was the first to complete a B.A.  I was fortunate, like Brodkey, to come from a home that encouraged reading, but most of the books read in my family were genre fiction, fantasy, et cetera.  I won’t say that I’m embarrassed by my family–well, not my immediate family at least–but I was a little disappointed that my mother doesn’t have the right body of knowledge to understand my prize-winning paper on Moby-Dick.

p. 540, " the generic corrective display thesis"

Okay, I haven’t started teaching 1020 yet, but from the sample papers I’ve seen, this model of thesis seems like it would be a real breakthrough for some of the students I will encounter next semester, despite Brodkey’s account of its limitations.

p. 543: "[. . .] I could reinvent myself as a classless, genderless, raceless scholar."

I was puzzled to see this in the Brodkey’s essay, especially since she explicitly states that she wants this to be a history of her literacy as a white, working-class female.

But that’s not what interests me.  What interests me is more thoughts about the canon.  (I know y’all must be growing as tired of that by now as I’m sure you were of my whining insecurities earlier this month.)  I often wonder if attempts to revise the canon are not inspired by the fact that the model of a genderless, raceless, classless scholar has been debunked.  While I’m not saying that, for example, only African-American critics have attempted to get Equiano canonized, I wonder whether the diversification of the academy isn’t connected to the revision of the canon.  As more minority scholars enter the field, as more people rise from the underclasses into the halls of academia, it is only natural and right they should be compelled to study and advocate those texts that speak to their interests and history.

That said, I suck, because all of my favorite books are by dead white males.  Sorry, Herman.