Canonization- who decides what’s great literature? What makes great literature? In a reading done for another class, the author of that article said that great literature has to have a purpose, basically arguing against Art for Art’s sake. According to him then, ought HoD be canonized? What purpose did it serve other than for the colonized to give themselves pats on the back for being white and civilized and to perpetuate the African stereotype? See, as I read Achebe, I found myself agreeing with him, that HoD ought to be removed from the Western canon (since we are reading it even now as Achebe pointed out).
But then I thought, no it shouldn’t be. Because we aren’t sharing Conrad’s sentiments as the people of his times did or people 50 years later still did when Achebe wrote his article. We see the blatant racism, we see the Manichean aesthetics in place. Let me put it this way- the first ever time I heard of HoD was in JC when my White Lit teacher condemned the book for its blatant racism. So it would have been tragic if Conrad’s novel had been removed from the Western canon because then Achebe wouldn’t have seen/known the day a white man would slam the book. Achebe got what he wished for only because the book has remained in the canon. It being canonized has allowed it to proliferate outside the Western culture and world but while its fame reaches, its sentiments don’t. And now, even Whites are disgusted by the book.
It being canonized is a good thing- let it remain like a stain upon the Western literary history. If HoD once turned people against
(300 words)
PS: Prof Koh, you didn't "mark" my previous post. Just a reminder (",)
Posts
