BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Books, Criticism & Writing >

Harry Potter and the Canon

  
 
matthew.
23:11 / 24.10.05
So, in Headshop, I caused a smidge of a stir, and now I'm going to cause another one. In my English class called "Canonical Conundrums", we were asked to argue whether or not Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone is part of the literary Canon or not. I chose a simple argument that is as follows: 1) The Canon is Christian. 2) Potter is Christian, therefore 3) Potter is Canonical.

I received an A+ for this paper I wrote three years ago. Now that I'm older, I see the flaws in my argument, but I make no edits. Here is the paper:

It is a fairy tale. Harry Potter and The Philosopher’s Stone is a fairy tale, and it is currently the most popular fairy tale, if not story, of all. This novel written by J. K. Rowling is perhaps the most famous children’s novel of all time and it is only seven years old. There is no way to know how much of an impact this novel will have on future works of literature, but it is probable that this novel will continue to be read by new generations of readers for decades, if not a century. The question is, however, does Harry Potter and The Philosopher’s Stone deserve to be read? Is this novel part of the elusive and elite literary Canon? This essay will answer that question by first defining the Canon, and then use the definition to argue that Harry Potter does indeed deserve to be read along side Frodo’s adventures and Lucy’s travels through the wardrobe.

The most important step in understanding the Canon is to distinctly define it. Harold Bloom, a famous literary critic has proposed an excellent definition in his essay “An Elegy for the Canon”. His essay argues that humans do not have enough time in their short lives to read all of the famous works of literature, so they must then decide which works to read. To decide then, Bloom argues that we must read books that have aesthetic strength, which means “…mastery of figurative language, originality, cognitive power, knowledge, [and] exuberance of diction” . This is only a piece of the elusive puzzle, however, as the other piece is the issue of textual interaction. Bloom maintains that the “…function of the Canon [is] the remembering and ordering of a lifetime’s reading” and the way we remember texts is how they “talk” to each other. This textual interaction means that the Canon urges readers to think and to meditate over what they have read. The Canon means that the novels, plays and poems still have something relevant to tell us even if the work is a thousand years old, such as The Torah, the Gospels, Paradise Lost, and Inferno. These works are very important to the literary Canon because they speak to each other, thanks to “mere Christianity” . While Bloom states that “the movement from within the tradition cannot be ideological or place itself in the service of any social aims, however morally admirable” , which is to say that Canonical works rise above morals and ideologies. This statement from Bloom is a logical fallacy, as works of the Canon do rise above these “mere” morals, and they do so because of their ideologies. Bloom’s examples of perfect (or near perfect) literature as Canonical are excellent examples because the works say something fundamentally spiritual in nature. All the works he described do say something relevant, even after a thousand years, because they say something revelatory about spirituality. “Without the Canon, we cease to think” , and the aforementioned works of literature do indeed force the readers to think about what they are reading, and they are reading works implicitly Christian.

The question remains, however, is Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone Canonical? To answer that, we must understand that the Canon uses textual interaction, and this is proven with references in the novels to other novels. For example, Shakespeare’s Hamlet is fond of quoting and/or usurping Homer. Both are unquestionably Canonical. Harry Potter is indeed canonical because his adventures are primarily Christian. The argument against this comes from the very obvious fact that Harry Potter lives in a world of wizards and witches which is denounced by Christian scriptures. Witchcraft is highly suspect of so-called satanic practices, which go against Christian ideals. Unfortunately, many Christian fundamentalists choose to ban and burn Rowling’s books on the basis that they are pagan and promote witchcraft. This is too bad, because any astute reader will discover that not only does Harry Potter not promote possible witchcraft, but also it strongly preaches fundamental Christian values. It also references heavily from other works of the Canon, and therefore is Canonical.

Is Harry Potter a Christian? Does he follow the teachings of Christ? The answer would have to come from reading the texts themselves. The first novel have vast amounts of magic, but the magic is not the most important part of the novel. Harry Potter is a very good student at magic, but he is not even in the same league as the dark Lord Voldemort, and yet Harry defeats them. Harry wins because he is intelligent, brave, and above all because he is more human than his opponents. What the bad guys utterly lack is humanity, human feelings, and values. Harry has them all, and they are Christian values, such as bravery, and self-sacrifice. An example of this would be Harry’s friend Ron Weasly is playing a lethal game of chess. Ron must be physically taken off the board for Harry to continue on to face the enemy, but in doing so, Ron will lose his life. He says of his sacrifice, “’That’s chess!’ snapped Ron. ‘You’ve got to make some sacrifices! I take one step forward and she’ll take me – that leaves you free to checkmate the king, Harry!’” . Fortunately, they all make it out alive, but the idea that Ron would sacrifice himself is still there. “Moral choices and responsible exercise of free will are no match for forces nobody can really control, including cosmic energies, astrological influences, and karmic debts to be repaid through reincarnation. It is Harry’s moral superiority that saves the day” . It is true that Harry Potter practices magic, but he does not use it for evil; Harry uses magic to save the lives of his Christian brothers, but he doesn’t always use the magic. In another example of Harry Potter not being pagan is found in the episode devoted to the troll. Harry Potter, Ron Weasly and Hermione Granger find the troll in the bathroom and during the fight, “’Harry stuck his wand up its nose and Ron knocked it out with its own club” . Here is the perfect example of Harry not being a literal wizard, and therefore can be considered Christian. The novel is good versus evil and good prevails because it is morally good, such as in other Canonical texts.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone is rich with textual interaction. An example of this would be the troll found in the chapter entitled “Hallowe’en”. The troll is described as “twelve feet tall, its skin was a dull granite grey, its great lumpy body like a boulder with its small bald head perched on top like a coconut” . Well-versed readers will note that this is exactly how Tolkien describes the troll that attacks the Fellowship in The Fellowship of the Ring. Even more versed readers will remember that The Lord of the Rings is a largely Christian allegory. Another example of Rowling referencing the Christian literature is the school house “Gryffindor”. Its official symbol is that of a lion. Another famous lion is Aslan, king of Narnia, and Christ-figure of C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia. Aslan was killed in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, and was resurrected thanks to protagonist Lucy’s tears. In both books, the lion is to symbolise all that is Christian. On the other side of the coin, the mascot for the opposing house, Slytherin, is of a snake. Readers will remember that the great tempter in literature is the snake in Genesis, the very snake who convinced Eve to eat of the apple of knowledge. Finally, another reference to Christian literature is a reference to the antithesis of God, that is of Cthulhu, H.P. Lovecraft’s creation. Lovecraft’s characters referrred to the evil God as “He-who-cannot-be-named”. This is strikingly similar to Lord Voldemort, who is referred too by most people as “You-know-who”. Harry accidentally says it in the presence of Ron Weasly, who replies, “’You said You-know-who’s name!’” . Rowling is intent on referencing all the Christian books of the Canon, and this textual interaction is what makes Harry Potter Canonical, as well as other elements.

Harold Bloom argues that the Canon needs to be reread. To know if the book should be read, the reader should hold an “…ancient test…unless it demands rereading, the work does not qualify” . That factor means that the reader encounters the plot first, and upon second reading, understands the deeper secrets. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone is being reread over and over again. Children have made databases upon databases that cover each tiny strand of information that Rowling writes. There are hundreds of websites and books devoted to smallest piece of information. Children scour the novels, combing them with precision that even a literary expert like Bloom could admire. Unfortunately, there are still controversies over the content of witchcraft that children seem to know a heap about.

The problem with Harry Potter, a lot of people say, is that he practices witchcraft. A national Christian group called “Focus on the Family” have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to get Harry Potter banned from schools and libraries. Paul Hetrick, spokesman of the group said, “The positive messages are packaged in a medium – witchcraft – that is directly denounced in scripture” . However, the highly influential evangelical newsmagazine “Christianity Today” has called the series a “ ‘Book of Virtues’ with a pre-adolescent funny bone. Amid the laugh-out-loud scenes are wonderful examples of compassion, loyalty, courage, friendship and even self-sacrifice” . Even though there is a huge controversy surrounding Rowling, a divorced mother, and her creation, the evidence supports that Harry Potter is Christian and is part of the literary Canon because of that.

In conclusion, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone is part of the literary Canon. Using Bloom’s definition of the Canon as self-referential, and rereadable, Harry Potter rises above children’s literature as timeless. The first book in a series of seven books is able to reference all the great works of the Canon which are Christian. The protagonists are Christian and represent all the Christian ideals. The Canon is Christian, Harry Potter is Christian, and therefore Harry Potter is Canonical.

Works Cited:
-Bloom, Harold. “An Elegy for the Canon”. The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages. (New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1994).
-Introvigne, Massimo. “Avvenire”, November 3, 1999.
-Kurtz, Holly. “Denver Rocky Mountain News”, November 6, 1999.
-Nolan, Bruce. “Religion News Service”, July 16, 2000.
-Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (London: Bloomsbury, 1997).


What do you fine folks think?
 
 
Jack Fear
23:12 / 24.10.05
Ask me in 25 years.
 
 
Keith, like a scientist
03:31 / 25.10.05
Harold Bloom argues that the Canon needs to be reread. To know if the book should be read, the reader should hold an “…ancient test…unless it demands rereading, the work does not qualify” . That factor means that the reader encounters the plot first, and upon second reading, understands the deeper secrets.

This is an interesting, but dubious, argument for Canonization. I'm not sure if I can buy it, though, cause I've felt compelled to re-read numerous books that are of a...questionable...literary merit. Shadow Rising by Robert Jordan and Jack The Bodiless by Julian May to name my favorite examples. These are good yarns, but I'm not sure they belong in any kind of canon.

However, I have also re-read The Satanic Verses, The Dark Tower Series, The Lord of the Rings, and Bluebeard (Vonnegut) too many times to count...I would firmly argue that all these belong in any type of "Literary Canon."

There certainly are other requirements, but Bloom's "ancient test" seems to be a bit hard to reconcile.
 
 
Keith, like a scientist
03:33 / 25.10.05
Hmm...I admit to being confused as to the importance of Christianity to Literary Canon.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
08:44 / 25.10.05
Yes, I don't think the Iliad is a particularly Christian text... though Matt's essay is an example of someone taking 'Christian' values and applying them to a text to demonstrate that, because the text exhibits these values, it must therefore be Christian - this is highly dubious IMO - and also, are bravery and self-sacrifice really Christian values? Rather than values which many Christians regard highly?

Obviously HP references and participates in a broader set of ideas and topoi, many of which have been developed in a Christian context, but I don't think that makes the book Christian (nor does it make many other texts from the same milieu Christian).

In addition I'd take issue with the whole idea of the canon... there's a thread about this somewhere... here, in fact.
 
 
Jack Fear
09:38 / 25.10.05
Matt, did you go to Catholic school, by any chance?
 
 
matthew.
14:05 / 25.10.05
I have a couple of comments that I was thinking about last night.

1) I should have explained that while I gave this essay to my prof with a straight face, I was moreover being funny here. In terms of the class, I was completely serious, but if I were trying to argue this for a Phd candidacy exam, I'd be laughed out of the place. I was just trying to by funny. The argument doesn't really hold up because my so-called Christian values are simply just being a good person. No, I haven't gone to Catholic school. I was raised Anglican, and then I "converted" to agnosticism. But I find myself very fascinated by matters of religion, see here. I mean, I'm not one of those unbelievably arrogant atheists who instead of worshipping God, they worship the almighty number. I'm mildly educated in matters of the Bible, but don't expect me to argue anything about the Bible.

2) I have a question about canonicity. The Many Ghost of Dr. Graves said, "Ask my in 25 years". In the first thread I ever made, many people made the same comments about another recent book. I want to ask, then, what is the purpose behind distance to qualify a text for the Canon.

Let me develop this a little bit. In the thread linked above, alterity said, "Tremendously difficult to know whether or not any text is one of the best of the last decade (whatever the decade). We don't have the historical distance yet to know." What does the historical distance do? To give a hypothetical answer, the historical distance gets us all away from the hype, away from the media, and away from the comments and opinions of the author himself (say, if he were promoting his book as the greatest). Sure, these are all bad things, but I have a couple of examples to show why historical distance is faulty in some cases.

In the world of classical literature, in the realm of academia, scholars are notorious for moving in trends and fads. Seriously. Right now, Tacitus is coming back into favor. For some time, maybe twenty years, Tacitus had no serious historical weight. The Annals were not considered essential in academia, because they are based on unreliable secondary sources. But right now, in the 21st century, the United States' invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq has inspired people to quote Tacitus. He is coming back into academic favor and in mainstream culture, see this article in the Guardian.
Therefore, even with historical distance, the items of the Canon alters, dropping one, adding one. Maybe in twenty years, Catullus will become obsolete. Won't that be a shame?

If something is so obviously a classic, why can't we ascend it to canonical status? Like Ulysses, for example. Joyce was heralded as a genius upon on its publication, and the text's canonical status has not diminished.

I understand the historical distance is important. I'm not saying we should do without it. I'm saying with exceptions, like Harry Potter and Ulysses, we should bend the "rules", as sketchy as those are.
(HA! Bet you thought you'd never see HP and Ulysses in the same sentence in the same context!)
 
 
Alex's Grandma
15:14 / 25.10.05
It's difficult to get a handle on what you're saying here, Matt. Are you talking about Tacitus as part of the *historical* canon? And if so, isn't that something quite different to the *literary* canon? Seeing as the former would seem to about a reasonably definable set of values (eg, accuracy of the record as it tallies with the most recent thinking/research as to what actually happened) and the latter to do with the much vaguer question of aesthetic, y'know, 'beauty'? Or at least, of why a given written work is still at least notionally read, and enjoyed, by subsequent generations, who on the face of it live in very different societies?

It's the difference between the stand-up comedian who gets an (Easy? Not necessarily, but still...) laugh of recognition about say, West Indian immigrants, or celeb scandals, or products in the marketplace, and the one who's still funny when the precise cultural circumstances that led to the gag have fundamentally changed.

Or to put it another way, 'you' might think that the Harry Pottter novels are timeless classics, Matt, and I might think the same thing about American Psycho, but until some 'time' has actually passed, it's the academic equivalent of bullshitting in the pub, IMVHO.

I'd struggle to fill the back of a postcard with what I know about Tacitus, that said.
 
 
matthew.
16:31 / 25.10.05
I should also clarify... I don't much care for the Harry Potter books, and I've only read the first one and I have seen all the movies.

But it's cultural impact can not be understated at all. You'd have to be a moron to think that Harry Potter will be forgotten. J.K. Rowling is the equivalent to Dickens in terms of audience demand for new adventures.

By the way, Alex's Grandma, I love American Psycho. I love it to death (pun intended)
 
 
matthew.
16:33 / 25.10.05
And I meant Tacitus in a literary sense, but with the classical authors, genres are much more slippery than genres today. History back then was considered high literature, equal to epic and poetry. Only the novel, surprisingly, was considered low art -> The Golden Ass and Satyricon are our most famous examples.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
17:30 / 25.10.05
You'd have to be a moron to think that Harry Potter novels will be forgotten.

I'll admit to being borderline senile of course, but that's a highly contentious statement, surely?

Off the top of my head, the 'Jennings' series, the 'Billy Bunter' series, the 'Just William' series, the Famous Five, the Secret Seven, the Hardy Boys and so on, all very popular with the young people/parents of same at the time, have now pretty much dropped off the cultural radar. If the first three in particular live on at all (and I appreciate that you may have no idea what the hell I'm going on about here, but, on the other hand, that would kind of tend to go some way to making the point,) it's only as an influence on the Harry Potter books - who's to say the scar-faced schoolboy wizard mightn't go the same way?

I'm flattering teh Potter books with the comparison I suspect, but who reads Richard Adams, for example, these days?

My best guess is that the Harry Potter franchise may carry on for a while, once the novels have dried up, in much the same way that the James Bond one did, ie, until the movie people have ran out of books to adapt, but that after that, unless JK Rowling's made some fairly suspect decisions with regard to the rights, and what can borderline legally be screwed out of them, that'll be pretty much 'all she wrote' for the Hogwarts academy.

Insofar as there'll be better-funded movies, and very similar books on much the same kind of theme, that will leave the Potter property for dead.

But just that's what I think - Harry Potter may well prove to be a Bond/Sherlock Holmes type of figure, with that cross-generational appeal. Then again, a fistful of loose change and a packet of fags would, I'd hoping, get you the rights to film one of Agatha 'bleeding' Christies novels in Hollywood round now, so low is the stock of her characters, and long, if I'm correct, may that situation continue.
 
 
matthew.
21:22 / 25.10.05
Your comparison to the Hardy Boys and things I've never heard of is apt. You're perfectly right, but with those things, and Richard Adams (of whom I've heard of, but never read), was there such a cultural plague?

(by the way, Alex's Grandma, my "moron" statement had nothing to do with you; it was meant for Harold Bloom and his ilk. Sorry if I wasn't clear; a problem I'm having...)
 
 
astrojax69
06:32 / 27.10.05
harry and the furious, er famous, five could sit about having lashings of ginger beer together and telling each other of their wizard wheezes, what!


i suspect harry will endure in a way bunter and the five may not due to the immense popularity of the cinematic adventures. in journo parlance, ya gotta have vision. also, i think the [alleged] resurgence in children actually reading, instigated by the potter phenomenon, may give a longevity to rowling that perhaps only enid blyton's name possesses...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:07 / 27.10.05
In a bit of a hurry, will return but, matt, could you possibly do us a favour and stop making statements about classical texts? It's a bit painful.
 
 
matthew.
13:36 / 27.10.05
Painful? How so?

Sorry to do so, but it's my metier.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:43 / 27.10.05
Your metier is making posts about classical texts?
 
 
Quantum
18:03 / 27.10.05
(wild tangent about Potter-) so Rowling copied Gaiman (Books of magic) who was heavily influenced by his friend DWJ, who Rowling also copied directly (Witch Week) and mixed with a bit of boarding school story (many examples none of which spring to mind right now except Molesworth)? Is that right?

Wait, I can make this on topic- should such a derivative text be considered Literature, never mind canon?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:21 / 27.10.05
Well, because it's silly. First up, the concept of "unreliable secondary texts" is dodgy. Carey and Scullard, or Bury and Meiggs, didn't have access to anyone who was alive and witnessed the events they described, but that is a natural feature of historiography. Also, the Annales in particular run from 14 to 66 (or 68) CE, and as such in what sense the Hell was he not using primary sources? The acta may arguably be skewed, likewise the speeches, but he had access to a vast number of people with personal memories of the period. So, in the absence of further elucidation, that claim kind of hurt. You might not accept sine ira et studio, and you'd be wise not to, but that does not disqualify the Annales, before we even get onto the Agricola (which is the work referenced in that article, not the Annals) and the Germania, which may well be bollocks but for really different reasons.

So, you know, that. I'd be interested to see who has discarded the Annales on the strength of a lack of primary sources in the last twenty years.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:49 / 27.10.05
More generally, I think your essay fails because it excludes the middle. The Canon is not Christian, and a work is neither Christian nor canonical if its characters behave in a Christian fashion. The Left Behind novels, for example, are chock full of characters behaving in a Christian fashion, but are clearly not canonical. For that matter, your inclusion of Tolkein and C.S. Lewis in the Canon is highly questionable at best - to have two members of this elusive sect drinking in the same pub seems counterintuitive. A better source for initial critisism might be F.R.Leavis' The Great Tradition, without which I'm not sure Bloom is likely to make a lot of sense.

Of course, amany would take issue with the Leavisite Canon, both as concept and as list - Keith, for example, has above listed a number of books as inhabitants of a literary canon which Leavis would, I suspect, have found unreadable. Which possibly makes the case for a deeper criticism of canonicity more generally, and for the radical redefinition of the term and/or its inhabitants. To argue that there is a multiplicity of canons makes more sense in the context of a more modern or postmodern approach to literary criticism, but to argue that Rowling should be in it on the strength of her Christian ethics... dubious.

Of course, Potter then raises the question of the secondary meaning of canon, one which has only recently come into play - what is officially sacnctioned about a character by that character's creator. I have never felt the need to reread a Harry Potter book, but I know of people who have pored over the texts in order to establish a "canonical" basis for their own interpretations of the text in the creation either of interpretations (Lupin and Harry's mother were lovers) or as the jumping-off point for their own fictions; for example, a story in which Snape and Sirius Black are lovers is clearly not canonical, but the writer might appeal to references within the canonical text - that is, what has been written by Rowling in the books or possible scholia gleaned from interviews - to "embed" the story. Thus, such a story might be considered more canonical within the fictitious universe of Harry Potter generally, and Harry Potter fanfiction specifically, than a story in which Harry Potter is an alien, or Will Stanton turns up at Hogwarts, or a teenaged girl from America arrives and wins Harry's heart to the strains of Enya.
 
 
matthew.
02:38 / 28.10.05
Point proven re Tacitus. I'll never speak of the classical texts again.

Is there a way this essay can be improved? I wrote this for an English class and we had a word limit, so I couldn't really make this into a Master's thesis. So if I had no word limit, what could I do to improve this essay? Other than bring Leavis into it? Or is this an utterly awful essay?
 
 
Loomis
07:32 / 28.10.05
To start with, you could sharpen up your style, make it more formal. Phrases such as "that children seem to know a heap about" and "This is too bad" should be weeded out. Half the battle in a scholarly argument is at least sounding authoritative, and if your style is too informal, you lose the confidence of your audience extremely quickly.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:35 / 31.10.05
Regarding improving the essay - the obvious thing to do would be to remove all reference to the literary canon, which makes it incoherent. If it was pared down to an essay with a title something along the lines of "Is Harry Potter a Christian hero in a Christian universe?", then you could probably build something at least potentially interesting from there, although you would have to put in a lot of textual analysis, and also support your contentions about Christian scripture. At the moment the question of canonicity is affecting it adversely, because your insistence that a text which is Christian is a part of the canon is undefended and, I suspect, indefensible. Honestly, I don't see a way of fixing this without rewriting the entire essay, and "rewrite the entire essay" is not constructive advice. Removing the emphasis on the canon removes some of the more obvious issues - for example, that Bloom lists in his "Western Canon" neither Tolkein nor C.S. Lewis, IIRC, references to whom you cite as proof of an interrelation between Rowling and canonical texts, and thus the canon itself, whereas finding points of contact between such works and Potter is far more useful in the discussion of whether Rowling has created a Christian work.

Having said which, it might be more interesting to look at the ways in which Rowling differs from children's books and Christian children's books. Tolkein and Lewis, for example, both create worlds with histories, creation myths and deities. Rowling doesn't - her creation myths are about institutions and families, not worlds. Her wizards celebrate Christmas, but in an apparently secular way - whereas in C.S Lewis Christmas is linked specifically to redemption and pissing Aslan - without him, it is always winter but never Christmas. There are no school prayers or religious hymns, and it is not made clear whether the ethnically diverse wizards share the religious beliefs of their muggle equivalents or whether wizardry has - or is - its own religious structures. Which could then go back into the question of whether Potter's values can be described as Christian, or simply admirable and human - one might compare the non-Christian works you cite above (the Torah, Homer), where people can be brave and self-sacrificing etc. without any relation of their actions to Christ or Christianity.
 
 
Mazarine
14:15 / 03.11.05
You may also run into problems since Harold Bloom has written a lot of reviews stating that the Harry Potter books are crap. (Not in those exact words, of course, it's Harold Bloom.)

Example:

"One can reasonably doubt that "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is going to prove a classic of children's literature, but Rowling, whatever the aesthetic weaknesses of her work, is at least a millennial index to our popular culture. So huge an audience gives her importance akin to rock stars, movie idols, TV anchors, and successful politicians. Her prose style, heavy on cliche, makes no demands upon her readers. In an arbitrarily chosen single page--page 4--of the first Harry Potter book, I count seven cliches, all of the "stretch his legs" variety."

And then another quote from Bloom: "But of course, the Harry Potter series is rubbish. Like all rubbish, it will eventually be rubbed down. Time will obliterate it. What can one say?"

And then apparently Neil Gaiman calls Harold Bloom a twerp.

Now what might really make that essay interesting is if you were to cite Harold Bloom's criticism of the HP books, and then try to argue that, according to his own criteria for what constitutes canon, he's mistaken.
 
 
Cat Chant
09:38 / 08.11.05
You'd have to be a moron to think that Harry Potter novels will be forgotten.

Whereas Catullus, of course, will go out of fashion in twenty years' time.
 
 
Cat Chant
09:52 / 08.11.05
what is the purpose behind distance to qualify a text for the Canon.

Because texts are canonized, not through a once-and-for-all demonstration that they conform to a formal set of 'qualifications' for canonicity - 'the canon' is always open, contentious and vexed - but through certain material processes, which take time. For any book to become canonical, the minimal requirements are that it has to be taught (probably at university level), and a body of secondary texts (both scholarly and literary) have to develop from it. For example, the Potter books could be seen as contributing to the canonization of Diana Wynne Jones, Jill Murphy, Geoffrey Willans and the other writers who influenced them, since the Potter books' legibility depends on the readers' familiarity with generic conventions in part shaped by Wynne Jones et al.

If the 'canon' has any meaningful sense at all, it refers to a set of books which form a shared literary culture. The measurability of this basically depends on the afterlife of a book. Bloom (et al.) think that some abstract, timeless 'aesthetic' qualities guarantee the survival of a work of literature: what actually guarantees the survival of a book is whether it has succeeded in putting into place the conditions of its own continued transmission. The Aeneid, say, is canonical because it continues to be legible, even when it's so far removed from the historical conditions which formed its first 'horizon' of reference. Why does it continue to be legible? Because of a certain continuity in ideas about empire, (hetero)sexuality, duty, and so forth, in part conditioned by the fact that the people who canonize the Aeneid all learned their ideas about empire, duty, and so forth from the Aeneid, or from books which "talk" to it.

As for what would make your essay better - the best thing would be to stop reading Harold Bloom and start reading Wolfgang Iser, Hans-[something - mindgoneblank] Jauss, Walter Benjamin and Toni Morrison.
 
  
Add Your Reply