Talk:Western canon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Western canon is part of WikiProject Literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Literature Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Obsolete discussions from 2003 and before archived here.

Contents

[edit] Dead Link

This link to Harold Blooms canon list seems to be dead,

http://www.literarycritic.com/bloom.htm

[edit] Mona Lisa

Could someone explain why the mona lisa is even in the page at all? It isn't referenced in the text.

[edit] Number of books in GBotWW

It said 54 volumes under the caption on the picture. I changed it to 61 because the set pictured is the second edition, which has 60 numbered volumes, and an unnumbered one called "The Great Conversation" (which is one of the numbered volumes in the first edition).

[edit] Singularity

"Dead white males" (the new expression) wrote books because they were the educated people. A negro couldn't be expected to write books. A slave could be whipped for learning the alphabet. Why would anyone "attack?" I am perplexed. GhostofSuperslum 11:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


You are perplexed because you think that there is a logical reason for the attack. Instead, look for emotion, passion, and will as causes.This will terminate your perplexity.72.73.205.104 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Benighted

This section is ridden with weasel words. "It has been attacked"? By whom? Is their objection any more refined than "dead white European males"? Are these critics taken seriously by any scholar? This is a simplistic and misleading section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.19.9 (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] more on the debate

i found links that talk some more about the sides of the controversy. http://www.goacom.org/overseas-digest/Discourse/literarycanon.htm http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/107629/ethnic_writers_and_the_western_literary.html

[edit] National bias

I would think that despite the existence of undisputed masters of Western literature (Homeros, Shakespeare, Goethe, Dante, Cervantes, etc.), there would be a lot of bias depending on the scholar's national background. For example, British or American experts would place more emphasis on Chaucer, Dickens, and so forth, while a Frenchman would go into Rabelais and Moliere, an Italian Boccaccio, Petrarch, etc. Especially since the 19th century, the ideal of a universal Western masterpiece is a little rare. Wouldn't there be some kind of dispute over this? Brutannica 07:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As an English-speaking American I have to disagree with you there. The whole course of my education has been "western" in general; that is, the goal universally preached to me was to become cognizant of the world outside our narrow shores (narrow because so far apart as to be isolating). If you were unfamiliar with other European literature you just were not educated. In fact this tradition descends from the rationalist goals of the American Revolution, which was considered only a stage in the universal revolution. The American army scoured Europe, so to speak, for military men who would become international soldiers of fortune and our war memorials are full of their names: Kosciusko, Lafayette, etc etc. The first thing we said on being forced out of our isolationism was "Lafayette we are here." I'm familiar with the ignorant brand of "nationalism" of which you are speaking; it crops up on Wikipedia all the time. These mainly European "nationalists" promulgate any distortion or lie in the interest of their "nation." I myself do not think they are allowed freedom of speech in their own societies, but then, those usually have an "ethnic" basis. I think the Great Books series is truly international; that is, western - they admittedly do not cover the great writings of India, China, Japan and so on - and whenever I see narrow nationalism raising its ethnic-cleansing head I think - oh no, foreign prejudice. Usually those in America who go for the ethnic cleansing idea are not educated enough to use Wikipedia or be interested in Great Books or even know or care what the issues are. They just know they hate people who are different. The rationalist ideal failed them or else they failed it. They cannot avail themselves of our educational resources including Wikipedia. So, I do not believe nationalism played any part in the selection of the western canon. If all the books were French or Greek or Albanian or Russian that is what would be in the great Books series.Dave (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
PS. There's an analogy with opera. The Italians just happened to write the lion's share of the world's best opera. The fact that they dominate compendia does not indicate Italian nationalism, even though Italians may justly be proud of Italian opera. Excelsior. Ciao.Dave (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)