Slate.com on Social Justice and the English Literary Canon

I came across this article on the literature subreddit. Albeit a bit condescending, I think raises excellent points.
Yale students want to remake the English Major requirements, but there's no escaping white male poets in the canon.

[Liam Barden]

"Here’s the thing, though. If you want to become well-versed in English literature, you’re going to have to hold your nose and read a lot of white male poets. Like, a lot. More than eight." - SLATE

LOL

I recently completed a BA in Anthropology & Sociology / Literary & Cultural Studies . . . So, allow me a piece of advice of a type I know well.

Read poems, novels and short stories OF YOUR CHOICE, outside academia.

You can teach yourself everything you need to know about literature simply by READING FOR PLEASURE.

Maybe re-watch Dead Poets Society, Robin Williams knew all about the cancer of academic criticism, and so did Nietzsche:

Scholars who basically spend all their time poring over books ultimately become completely unable to think for themselves. They spend all their energy saying yes and no, criticizing what other people have already thought.
— Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

Quote Originally Posted by Liam Barden

[I]Read poems, novels and short stories OF YOUR CHOICE, outside academia. You can teach yourself everything you need to know about literature simply by READING FOR PLEASURE.

I don't think so, at least not ipso facto. I personally have, indeed, learned more about the field of literature on my own time than in formal instruction, but this is probably due to my preference of reading literary fiction and the occasional literary criticism. A person who reads only popular bestsellers probably not learn "everything you need to know about literature" than someone who prefers to read the former. Otherwise, I agree; Pope's essay still holds weight today, and I wonder if Harold Bloom ever ponders on sleepless nights: "One of my heroes has deeply insulted me a good two centuries before I was born..."

Connecting your sentiments with the initial topic, I generally prefer to read the Canon of the Weird, the Surrealists, and the Obscure more so than that of the Bourgeois, the Realists, and the Popular. But, inevitably, my preferred canons are on some level influenced by the canons of the status quo: no Lovecraft without Poe without Byron without Shakespeare without Chaucer without Dante without Ovid without Homer.

Literature, to me, operates like a phylogenetic tree; as biologists can determine the common ancestry of an organism through fossils and molecular evidence, so a reader, critic, or historian can determine a work's literary ancestry. The transitional forms were likely authored by somebody with odious views from an odious time, but they were a necessary step to produce the present work.

[Liam Barden]

Quote

I don't think so, at least not ipso facto. I personally have, indeed, learned more about the field of literature on my own time than in formal instruction, but this is probably due to my preference of reading literary fiction and the occasional literary criticism. A person who reads only popular bestsellers probably not learn "everything you need to know about literature" than someone who prefers to read the former. Otherwise, I agree

I should have been more specific, but that's basically what I meant, in an extremely individualistic sense.

I'm only interested in learning "everything I need to know about literature" in relation to the writers of my choice – Mishima, Céline, Burroughs, Bloy, Ligotti, Isis, Houellebecq, etc . . . and all the while I'm simultaneously discovering a lot of the writers that influenced their work . . . I've bundled their taxon and traced their phyla without any academic assistance. My lecturers taught me nothing, they just hijack literature for SJW appropriation, LOL, but let's not get into that.

Anyway, take my old man for instance. He reads a lot, but mostly only war novels. He has no interest in the history of literature, just playing saxophone, drinking wine and reading war novels. He's your average cis-white malestrom who reads solely for pleasure and little else.

"Literature is entertainment or it is nothing" – Thomas Ligotti

I think someone who is truly eager to understand the history of literature, someone enrolling as an English Major, is better off self-educating, than paying big $$$ to slough through a list of books they could easily read at home. Secondary material is all available online . . .

[ToALonelyPeace]

Some of the phrases here puzzle me. What is "polyamorous green"? What is "cis" ?
Looking at Yale courses, "Readings in American Literature" seems more inclusive with the presence of Dickinson, O'Connor and Cormac McCarthy. I doubt one year of white-male-only poems is going to make "students feel so alienated they get up and leave the room or the major" (from the petition).
Reading the course descriptions remind me of the prime reason why I did not choose an English major: the common themes. Religion, sex, politics, culture, or environment are all scalpels prepared for dissection. You don't read or value the words because of what they mean to you, but what they mean for these themes (and your grades). Moreover, the reading time for each book gets shorter and your enjoyment decreases until every book becomes an assignment you can't wait to get over.

[childeroland]

Quote Originally Posted by ToALonelyPeace

Some of the phrases here puzzle me. What is "polyamorous green"? What is "cis" ? Looking at Yale courses, "Readings in American Literature" seems more inclusive with the presence of Dickinson, O'Connor and Cormac McCarthy. I doubt one year of white-male-only poems is going to make "students feel so alienated they get up and leave the room or the major" (from the petition). Reading the course descriptions remind me of the prime reason why I did not choose an English major: the common themes. Religion, sex, politics, culture, or environment are all scalpels prepared for dissection. You don't read or value the words because of what they mean to you, but what they mean for these themes (and your grades). Moreover, the reading time for each book gets shorter and your enjoyment decreases until every book becomes an assignment you can't wait to get over.

Cis means your gender identity aligns with the biological sex you were born with -- it's the opposite of transgendered.

No idea what polyamorous green means.

Quote Originally Posted by ToALonelyPeace

Looking at Yale courses, "Readings in American Literature" seems more inclusive with the presence of Dickinson, O'Connor and Cormac McCarthy.

Is McCarthy gay or bisexual? I admit I've barely read any interviews with him.

Quote

I doubt one year of white-male-only poems is going to make "students feel so alienated they get up and leave the room or the major"

Perhaps it would if, hypothetically, they read deeply racist vitriol all course, like HPL's "Creation" poem or Kipling's "The White Man's Burden"... but since that doesn't seem to reflect the reality of most lit courses, if it does drive the students away then perhaps the students don't enjoy reading as much as they thought they did, and in that case changing their major would be the best course of action.

Quote

Reading the course descriptions remind me of the prime reason why I did not choose an English major: the common themes. Religion, sex, politics, culture, or environment are all scalpels prepared for dissection. You don't read or value the words because of what they mean to you, but what they mean for these themes (and your grades). Moreover, the reading time for each book gets shorter and your enjoyment decreases until every book becomes an assignment you can't wait to get over.

I see merit in actively combing through a book for these things, as it gives insight about the author and his/her reaction to stimuli in their environment; but that was largely my experience, too, ToALonelyPeace.

[ToALonelyPeace]

Quote Originally Posted by Nirvana In Karma

Is McCarthy gay or bisexual? I admit I've barely read any interviews with him.

I am not sure, but there is Allen Ginsberg on the list if one seeks to make the circle rounder.

Quote Originally Posted by Nirvana In Karma

Quote Originally Posted by Liam Barden [I]Read poems, novels and short stories OF YOUR CHOICE, outside academia. You can teach yourself everything you need to know about literature simply by READING FOR PLEASURE. I don't think so, at least not ipso facto. I personally have, indeed, learned more about the field of literature on my own time than in formal instruction, but this is probably due to my preference of reading literary fiction and the occasional literary criticism. A person who reads only popular bestsellers probably not learn "everything you need to know about literature" than someone who prefers to read the former. Otherwise, I agree; Pope's essay still holds weight today, and I wonder if Harold Bloom ever ponders on sleepless nights: "One of my heroes has deeply insulted me a good two centuries before I was born..." Connecting your sentiments with the initial topic, I generally prefer to read the Canon of the Weird, the Surrealists, and the Obscure more so than that of the Bourgeois, the Realists, and the Popular. But, inevitably, my preferred canons are on some level influenced by the canons of the status quo: no Lovecraft without Poe without Byron without Shakespeare without Chaucer without Dante without Ovid without Homer. Literature, to me, operates like a phylogenetic tree; as biologists can determine the common ancestry of an organism through fossils and molecular evidence, so a reader, critic, or historian can determine a work's literary ancestry. The transitional forms were likely authored by somebody with odious views from an odious time, but they were a necessary step to produce the present work.

The question these petitions raise is "Should we judge the work based on certain beliefs and actions of the author?" It is a relevant question and I have heard this one in art and music as well. My answer is a resounding NO. To me, a work speaks for its author, and it is the work that inspires. Was someone inspired by Lovecraft's railings against foreigners so much they pick up their pen? Maybe Newton's occult studies influence many physicists? Of course not (most of the time).

On literature heroes and Harold Bloom......why should Bloom take an insult personally? The persons are dead, the malice into dust, these words reflect a mind long gone.

To me, literary heroes don't exist. My favorite authors were all one time or another either a hermit, depressive, involved in a fascist organization, looking down on women, macho, sadist, etc...The list goes on. I am always disappointed by how human they were.

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

Quote Originally Posted by ToALonelyPeace

My favorite authors were all one time or another either a hermit, depressive, involved in a fascist organization, looking down on women, macho, sadist, etc...The list goes on. I am always disappointed by how human they were.

Are you really disappointed about them being hermits or depressive?

I don't think it's unusual to feel insulted by their views. Sometimes you form a connection that feels like a friendship that could have been. I've certainly been disappointed or felt a little threatened that someone I respect has bad things to say about my values.

Quote Originally Posted by ToALonelyPeace

The question these petitions raise is "Should we judge the work based on certain beliefs and actions of the author?" It is a relevant question and I have heard this one in art and music as well. My answer is a resounding NO. To me, a work speaks for its author, and it is the work that inspires. Was someone inspired by Lovecraft's railings against foreigners so much they pick up their pen? Maybe Newton's occult studies influence many physicists? Of course not (most of the time).

I agree.

Quote Originally Posted by ToALonelyPeace

On literature heroes and Harold Bloom......why should Bloom take an insult personally? The persons are dead, the malice into dust, these words reflect a mind long gone.

I meant that to be a joke. As for literary heroes, Robert and I have similar views.

Quote Originally Posted by Prince James Zaleski

The sort of politically correct awfulness that would have seemed purely to exist in the realm of right-wing paranoia as soon as three years ago is now starting to stifle the arts and the discussion of ideas. Troubling times. I strongly disagree with practically all of my favourite writers' political opinions. Robert Aickman's opinions on social class and socialism were as far away from mine as it is possible to get. Doesn't change my opinion of his works one iota. Reading ideas you disagree with, as nasty as they can be, is healthy for the brain.

I don't see how this petition, this article, or similar petitions and articles are stifling discourse.

I agree with the Slate article that English Majors are going to be inevitably coerced into reading poets and prose writers of a largely racist, sexist, homophobic, imperialist, capitalist elite class that was the result of the culture and the time-period and that other demographics of that time will of course be underrepresented or not represented at all; the authors of the petition will probably see their grievance die on the faculty floor. However, they have asked a very legitimate question worthy of discussion and is generating discussion (evident by the article, Yale's process of amending the curriculum, and this very thread): Are there authors from that time period of comparable merit as the canonized elite; and, if so, why are we not being exposed to them?

Quote Originally Posted by Justin Isis

English literature is a bit of a disgrace anyway. I mean, let's be honest, before about 1900 (1870 if we're generous) there's not a lot to save. Beowulf? That Green Knight thing? Not exactly high art. Lots of wannabe Sagas and medieval poncing about. The vast Latin and Chinese civilizations produced much more sophisticated work.

There were noble fossils among the English coal seams.

Quote Originally Posted by Justin Isis

The military success of the British Empire and its impact on history should not be taken as an automatic inflation of literature produced in this language. The best of English literature remains to be written..

Indeed.