One topic that I may be interested in pursuing for my final paper is the way in which current novels are challenging the canon. I plan to be a high school English teacher in the near future, and I got my undergraduate degree in both adolescent education and English. While getting my degree in adolescent education, my professors stressed the importance of pairing the classics with their contemporary counter parts. For instance, A Catcher in the Rye has been compared to The Perks of Being a Wallflower. Essentially, by pairing the classics with their contemporary counter parts, literature belonging to the canon is made relevant to current generations. By doing this, however, the “dead white guys” are being challenged; not only are they being challenged, however, for in some cases they are also being trivialized. It can be argued that by pairing the classics with their contemporary counter parts, material from the canon is being simplified. I think it would be interesting to do a comparative analysis between a classic and a contemporary novel that has frequently been paired in many of today’s classrooms. In order to further my research, I would look for scholarly articles that analyze both works separately and try to look for similarities and differences between these comparisons. In addition to this comparative analysis, I would want to see how literary theory could enrich the content of the contemporary work. Going off of that, I would want to investigate whether or not literary theory is keeping the literature in the canon alive, and whether or not it will provide longevity to the contemporary counter parts of the classics. More or less, are contemporary counter parts too trivial to really dissect?
The second topic that interests me is whether or not the world of entertainment is ruining the world of literature. As many of you know, I am a fan of Oprah. When I need a good book to read, I will often browse her book club. I never saw a problem with this, until recently, because Oprah’s book club has always made good reading suggestions to me. In class a few weeks ago, however, many people mentioned that they are concerned with what Oprah’s book club is doing to the world of literature. More or less, Oprah’s book club is making reading suggestions to the masses, which is both negative and positive. It is positive, because it is promoting book sales of the writer. It is negative, however, because Oprah’s book club is promoting superficial readings. A large portion of society is reading the books that have Oprah’s stamp of approval and are leaving the reading process by making comments, such as “I enjoyed reading this text, because I can totally relate to the main character.” This scenario makes me consider the following questions: Are sources of entertainment robbing current literature of its value? What is Oprah’s criterion for including a book on her infamous list? Is Oprah’s book club encouraging superficial readings? If so, is literary theory becoming less and less prevalent resulting in the eventual death of the novel?
My thoughts are kind of all over the place, but I’m focused on these two topics. Feedback is greatly appreciated!
Cassie –
I think a paper on Oprah’s influence on readership and the world of publishing would make a great topic. Unlike you, I’m not a fan of Oprah, so I’ve never read any books from her club. Still, it would be interesting to find out her criteria for choosing a book. What’s her viewing demographic? Does she select works that play into that demographic? Should she be commended for encouraging reading and driving up book sales? Or is she perpetuating the sale of feel good fluff?
After reading your post, I visited Oprah’s Web site to check out what she’s recommending. The book that jumped out was Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina. Her site is touting the novel as the “Harlequin Romance” of its day. Poor Tolstoy. She’s comparing Anna Karenina with books that can be purchased at Price Chopper for $4.95. Why does she compare an 800 page, intricate novel to one of the least respected literary genres? Does Oprah think that harlequin romances are books that appeal to her viewers? Also, why aren’t there more classics? What does it say that she’s avoiding/ignoring works from the canon?
Beth
Cassie–either of these would make a fine topic! A couple of thoughts on each:
First, you’ve got a good idea of how to narrow the canon project from the beginning: look at a single pair of novels and the reception of both. I think you’d want a better sense of the canon as well: what people have said about its function, its constitutive elements, etc. I suggested Gregory Jay’s book to Allison, and you might begin there just so that you see how contentious the contemporary arguments are about canon.
You’ll want to pick your pair carefully to see what they can buy you, in terms of your argument. is it just a rehashing of the relevance vs. dumbing down argument? Here’s where the history of canon formation will give you some new language and terminology to play with.
The Oprah phenomenon is a significant one, and there are, surprisingly, a couple of book-length studies out (check Amazon), in addition to the final chapter of the Fitzpatrick book that we examined. I’d like to see you back up your claims about Oprah insisting on “superficial readings” of the novels. I think you’d want to define your terms there; are readings superficial if they aren’t replete with references to Derrida? How do literary scholars define the uses of a book, vs. how a layperson defines the uses of a book? I think that there are readers forums on the Oprah website—take a look at them carefully and see what you find. to the extent that you’re able, approaching some of your questions with an open mind as to competing sets of readers, rather than an assumed hierarchy, can help you make a more nuanced argument. Remember, many of Oprah’s readers would think that we’re people who suck all the joy out of reading by making it too hard and reading too much into it!