Canon-boom-boom-boy, canon-boom-boom
Still pondering over the implications of a reported remark by a literature lecturer that there is no definitive post-World War II British literary canon.
50-60 springs are little room, I suspect, for canon formation - look at how long it took for the standard Vict-lit canon to be established - was there not a period when George Eliot (George Eliot!!!!) was in the critical doldrums? EM Forster has a whole riff on how MAJOR George Meredith was in his young day, yet how he had faded by the 1920s (possibly one or two works have snuck back into the canon or near-canon, e.g. Diana of the Crossways?? - suspect that Gissing, gloomy ol' George, is more there these days.)
But I was also given to think about the Towering Geeenyus theory of art, and whether people who look like towering geenyuses may do so because, not much competition?
Also am far from convinced that all we need are Towering Geeenyuses - was mightily pissed off, many years ago, by one of Aldous Huxley's riffs on the subject and why it's really not worth bothering composing unless you are Beethoven, even if you happen to be Brahms (wot, he be dissing on Brahms????).
Anyway, possibly what we have now are more generally competent writers and books that have a certain amount of staying power -
- though, as I have already remarked, let us consider the track record of those books and writers that were BIG AND IMPORTANT in their day, and have faded like fadey-things, O HAI CP Snow.
Not to mention that there are plenty of books with obvious staying power which may not be GRATE LITRACHOOR but are still read with pleasure (and also plenty that I think still could be read with pleasure if only people knew about them and new editions got published).
(And is this another version of the whole best-selling vs gets prizes, critical repute vs popularity thing?) This entry was originally posted at http://oursin.dreamwidth.org/2265219.html. Please comment there using OpenID. View
comments.