Literary English has been a source of controversy for as long as the English word has been written. When Samuel Johnson wrote the first true English dictionary he compiled a canon of definitive texts from which he drew upon to cerate his dictionary, thus creating an English literary canon. These canons have been used constantly to try and cement a form of 'English' which is seen as the defining works of our language. The problem with a canon however is that for every group that it satisfies it will inevitably dissatisfy another.
The two poems, 'Plainview: 2 ' by N. Scott Momaday and 'The Waste Land' by T.S. Eliot are of obviously different natures and backgrounds. The irony being that both are written by men who claim to be Americans, yet 'Plainview: 2' is more recognisable as being set in North America, but unlikely to ever be classed as great literary work. Instantly a cultural difference can be noticed, Eliot's work is of a standardised English form, using complex language and difficult metaphors to entice the reader into thinking about the writing on different levels. 'Plainview' at a first glance looks to be a lot simpler, with lots of repetition and not anything like to complex syntax used by Eliot. Eliot's poem expects the reader to have a geographical knowledge of London to know the setting is in the financial district, together with an understanding of Christian Liturgy in that Jesus died on the ninth hour relating to the workers starting their day at nine. Momaday's poem expects an equal level of knowledge of culture and place in order for it to make perfect sense. This does not however mean that the poem is indeed any simpler than 'The Waste Land'. It is merely of a different culture, one where the poem is intended to be read aloud and thought about as it is spoken, the rhythm taken up with drums or music to express emotions and feelings in a way that merely reading it to on paper cannot divulge. Eliot's writes in a way in order to make the reader think for himself and engage his mind with what is written, in order for the true message to be worked out it seems as if silence whilst reading is almost necessary. A most striking difference.
To myself, despite the intended difficulty of being able to analyse the same, I find Eliot's work both more recognisable and easier to study, if not read. This is because I was raised and educated in a culture where this form of 'literary English' is seen as the norm and as great work. Momaday's writing would no doubt make more sense to me if I had a greater knowledge of Native North American writings and their life in general, knowing such things as what Saddle Mountain was and the obvious importance of their horses to them. When reading these two poems it is therefore obvious that cultural factors play an important role in what is seen as literary, another example is that when Milton wrote the heroic epic Paradise Lost he still used gender based forms of preposition instead of the recently adopted 'a' and 'the' as he felt that it truly reflected the way in which English should have been written, a concept now totally void.
The literary canon however would be more likely to place Milton and Eliot as great literary writers than Momaday. The question that must now be asked is what is it that forms a canon? The answer to that unsurprisingly falls with whom writes the canon.
As an example I will use the Leavistes, who were a group of scholars in the 1930's who developed a certain kind of canon. They believed that texts allowed in a literary English canon should preserve the roots of English writings and only 'English' English was to be allowed. They passed over the works of Milton for being to Latinate and Shelley for not being 'concrete' enough. This analysis was intended to enhance and protect English because, like Arnold in the Victorian Era, they believed that literature held the power to placate and educate the masses, reiterating all that popular society had degraded.
In contracts to this Nkosi, a South African writer, finds Eliot too pessimistic to describe African life and culture. So for Nkosi the Leaviste canon is not appropriate and doesn't cover the texts he doubtless feels as the best of English literary writing, the same is doubtless true of many other colonial writers, not to mention new generations of readers influenced by popular culture and new mediums of entertainment such as televisions and tabloid newspapers. Braithwaite uses another literary example of why what is seen as classical English is not altogether suitable for post-colonial writers and readers, he says that the regular use of the pentameter in English poetry is unsuitable for Caribbean writings able to describe the more gentle falling of snow on fields, but not capable of expressing the full force of a Caribbean storm. Indeed the experiences of Ngig) wa Thiong'o affected him to such an extreme that he refuses now to write in English but prefers to write in G)yiyi his native tongue or Kiswahili the Kenyan National language because of his childhood experiences of being taught the English language, to him no doubt the English literary canon is something over very little or no relevance, and this can be directly related to his upbringing and cultural heritage. Not only are protests of the traditional literary canon raised by post-colonial writers but also by women.
Women until the last century found it exceptionally difficult to be published, noticeable exceptions are notable such as Austen and Mary Evans, and even then Evans had to write under the pseudonym George Eliot. Of the three great literary traditions; novels, poems and drama of these only novels were accessible to women as they did not require classical education that was exclusively available only to boys and men. Within the literary canons the works of women are rarely classified as literary works; indeed there has been a lot of feminist criticism to this effect, to the degree where it is perceived that male readings of texts are overtly predominant and has been classed as phallic criticism.
Poststructuralism is the theory that communication is not a one way process, in that listener listens to the speaker, but instead a multi faceted one. Different people understand the text differently, as per the above example as I noted I found it difficult to understand and read the poem by Momaday. But no doubt a native North American would think the same of Eliot's writing. Using this theory there are as many interpretations as there are readers and listeners, making for a diversity of concepts and understandings. But behind all of these reasonings will be underlying concepts which will have been taught at schools or learnt from elders or peers. In this way the process of diversification cannot run amok and total chaos is not prevalent as at the core of these new theories is still a central core of reasoning and understanding. In this way all texts are liable to be read, analysed and compared to the current cultural and social situation. This can cause some problems, such as with Shakespeare's 'Taming of the Shrew' where feminist critics have dismissed it as coarse and degrading towards women, casting it in the social light, whereas in Shakespeare's day that form of subject mater would have been easily appreciated, so although poststructuralism can be alleviating in many forms to the set, rigid form of canon exemplified by the Leavistes it can also become too closely tied to the current social setting and lose sight of the fact that literature was written to fit its own time and is generally not concerned or worried about offended future sensibilities.
In conclusion, I think that culture strongly affects if not determines what is seen as literary English. The development of the canon began by educated people to try and educate and placate others. Indeed, what they believed to have been correct would be derived from that which they had experienced themselves, as children, adults and teachers. The influence of the cultural upbringing is paramount, the irony that intelligent intellectuals were only capable of developing a canon as believed by the Leavistes shows that they lacked the vision to see that this would draw criticism and ridicule. To this effect I am more inclined to side with the theories of the poststructuralists in that as times change, so do the questions and the readings thus generating new reading lists. In the end, it is the effect of culture upon us that enables us to create, and to then enjoy those creations, linking them to our own personal and cultural situations.
Material from Janet Maybin and Neil Mercer (2002 5th Edition) Using English from conversation to canon, London. Routledge p273 . For more information on this subject, see http://www.easyessaywriting.co.uk http://www.lawofcontract.co.uk Jennifer is a Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives, holding the LL.B with first class honours and having over six years of experience as a lawyer in private practice. She now works for a private company in the Midlands and, in her spare time, writes for various websites including Law of Contract and Easy Essay Writing. |
No comments:
Post a Comment