6. Canon formation and alternative reading practices

In the previous lecture we had a look at the way the graphic novel as a genre was accepted as valuable in Britain, and appreciated by prestigious institutions, such as the Royal Society of Literature. The process through which works within the genre were acknowledged as worthy of distinguished awards – after which these works will continue to represent value – is the process of canonization, the process in which these works become part of the recognized body of works, the established canon.

CANON: group of works that is considered authentic, valuable and worthy of study.

Canonical works are regarded as exemplary – this meaning is reflected by the etymology of the word: its origin is the Greek word Kanon, meaning a measuring rod, or standard. In theology the term refers to sacred books of the Bible, books that have divine authority.

Laurence Lerner discusses the controversy in the term related to literature:

“The very idea of literature involves valuing highly the experience of reading certain books, and thus implicitly rating others lower. It involves, that is, the idea of a canon. A canon is a set of sacred books, and the meaning has become secularized to refer to those works chosen by consensus as embodying what is truly valuable in a subject, so there will be a canon or works of literature, of great paintings, or works of philosophy” (Laurence Lerner, The Frontiers of Literature)

Briggs’s example shows the inherent controversy in the idea of the canon itself: while the term suggests a group of works of unchanging and essential value, the canonized group also changes with changing tastes. The value of a work may be debated. This is why a canon is not simply a body of texts, but rather a set of reading practices: works become canonized together with the interpretation attached to them, due to the fact that they are regarded as valuable for specific reasons, reflecting specific tastes.

We can regard the interpretation of a work as its meaning. Some critics, however, talk about signification rather than meaning. Meaning implies certain unquestionability, while signification is more clearly connected to a given context or a given function of a work within this context. Let us have a look at a nonliterary example, from a UK tabloid paper, The Sun.

“A terrified 19 stone [about 120 kg] husband was forced to lie next to his wife as two men raped her yesterday.”

Try to differentiate between the assumed opinion of its readers and other possible interpretations of the sentence – things that it reveals, other than what it openly communicates.

The sentence conveys the event in a way that is defined by the author’s opinion: the fact of the terrified big man is stressed. The interesting thing is that the sentence assumes: its readers will identify with this opinion, sympathize with the husband’s terror, and will be horrified by his situation. It does not need much skill in reconstructing the situation to realize that the wife’s perspective is curiously left unnoticed. Once we are aware of this, we can re-evaluate the situation and think about reasons why the article does not focus on what had happened to the wife. The sentence may signify something completely different compared to what it think it means.

To analyze the situation, the introduction of the term foreground, background and point of view are helpful. Foreground is the focus, what appears as most important, background is what appears inconspicuous, while point of view is the perspective from which an event is seen. In the previous example the sentence’s point of view foregrounds the husband’s state, but it is possible to look at it from another perspective, and see the wife as the unacknowledged center of the events, or even focus on the implied author of the sentence, and put his point of view in the foreground. The sentence also shows that the way an event is described is inherently connected to the point of view from which it is seen. The same applies to our interpretations, be it interpretations of artistic or everyday objects.

Turning back to the idea of the canon, we see that the term implies a point of view with general validity. There are critical schools that consciously challenge what they see as the dominant point of view, introducing alternative reading practices that offer alternative meanings of works, create alternative discourses, or focus on works and topics that have previously not been foregrounded. Let us see two such examples of critical schools that consciously challenge what they see as the dominant discourse. Here you can read about the relationship between these schools and the canon. A more detailed description of the same and other critical schools is given in Part 2 of this coursebook.

Post-colonial readings point out that the literary canon is not only based on Eurocentric values, but it is constructed in a way that is serves to authenticate the rightness of the colonial hierarchy of power. The canon may be subverted by creating a counter-discourse, which may happen through the subversion of the established meanings of canonized works by new interpretations or the inclusion of authors and works that challenge the dominant discourse – either non-mainstream white and western authors or representatives of non-western literature (Indian, Caribbean, African-American).

According to feminist readings the canon reflects the white bourgeois European cultural tradition from a male perspective. Subverting the canon is possible by tools similar to the ones described above: by foregrounding themes, in this case representing female experiences; including women writers into the canon; challenging the typical representations of women and the ideological assumptions sustaining these representations. Feminist approaches importantly make a distinction between sex (biological differences which determine us as female or male) and gender (our social make-up; culturally constructed differences which distinguish us as feminine or masculine, such as differences of dress, social role, expectations etc.). This allows for the possibility of challenging socially determined roles, as well as for resisting the regulative, identity-forming function of the discourse.