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
3 comments:
I like your point about how precisely because HoD has been canonised that it can become an object for attacks from anti-imperialist camp. But don't you feel that it rings also of a little forced optimism, because, after all, and to argue within the context of your White JC tutor's attitude towards HoD, the voice of dissidence (as can be represented by your tutor's disagreements with Conrad's sensibilities in HoD) seems to be on the ineffectual side? Precisely because, and despite the existence of anti-Conrad sentiments, such a "racist" work as HoD still persists as a canonised work of literature in the imagination of what I percieve to be the general public? So, I guess, my point is also: To what end do we care if Conrad's work is racist or not?
Hey Yisa!
Kay, I think right, that the text remains in the canon, just in reply to your point that the voice of dissidence is ineffectual, is because the book had been influential in shaping Western culture. That's what is a canon is for right? Sort of like a list of books that are must-reads or high brow stuff...So it remaining in the canon, doesn't seem ineffectual but rather rightful because racism was considered normative in Western culture, it was part and parcel of their history. To take it out, would be like to present a clean record as it were, like they never wrote literature that was so demeaning towards another race of people. You get my drift? Am I even explaining this clearly? Lol. I think the fact that we care that it is racist makes all the difference. Yupyup. Cheers~
Check plus
Excellent Shiva! Really thoughtful and clear.
Re: the last post, whoops, I actually have your grade for last week down in my record book but I might have missed posting a comment. In any case, you got a check plus. It was a very interesting contribution!
Post a Comment