Should Virgina Woolf's Flush be Considered as a Literary Canon
To be or not to be is always the basis of contention in all humans. In the case of Flush, the debate seems to be whether it, meaning Flush, fits into the literary canon- the modernist canon to be exact. The literary canon, according to Kershner, is “the accepted academic list of writers to be studied” (39). Therefore, if what is accepted in the literary canon is determined by a group of people, acclaimed critics of that era, then what is actually the criteria for such distinguished badge of canonical status? Is it the relationship between the work and the historical, or the artistic and social context of the era the work was published? Or is it being relevant to the changes, experiences and context of the writer, public and the supposed law on canonical issues?
Or perhaps, it is the intention behind the author’s work: if it’s for commercial or serious contemplation? Or maybe, it is the element of time wasting as Pamela described in her article, “"Flush and the Literary Canon: Oh where oh where has that little dog gone?" But if that is the case, then I am afraid I would not consider A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man canonical, because I consider it an immense waste of a week's time. However, my ENL 4321 instructor would disagree with me. If not, why then did she have the book as a text for a modern British Literature college class?
I am afraid that the answer to the question of criteria is exactly what is needed to be able to distinguish whether or not Flush classifies as a candidate for literary canonry. However, for this basis of this essay, I would veer into using the historical, social and artistic context as the criteria for judging whether Flush is actually a canonical text. Virginia Woolf, the author of Flush, is considered by many a modernist or feminist writer in the modernist era. And so, Flush is to be compared with the basis of modernist movement, and whether it stands up to par.
According to T. S. Eliot, “our civilization comprehends great variety and complexity which playing upon a refined sensibility, must produce various and complex results, so that literature of the modern moment must be difficult” implying that the texts of modernist era should not be straightforward and must be “hard for readers to find easy pleasure in” (Eliot 65, Matz 28). The modernist writers felt the need to make their works of fiction more realistic, which they interpreted to mean disorientating experience and also broken and obscure streams of stories. Therefore, if we base the criterion for literary canonry on that, then it is easy to see that Flush does not fit into such category, simple because it is so easy to read. However, I would prefer to refer Flush as the exception to the difficulty rule, the fact that not all “modern novelist saw modernity as cause to welcome confusion” (Matz 27).
However, if the criterion is the whether such text transcends its era and is applicable to the present time. Then it is very simple, Flush is befitting of such title. The simplicity of the text makes the events relatable. The themes in the text are universal, themes like aristocratic relevance, class distinction, power of love and changes of life are so timeless, that even for years to come someone will still be battling or experiencing such experience.
But if I were to make up the criteria for entry in canon status, I would probably list the ability to transcend through time, the adequate description of the time period- be it social or economic astuteness, the ability to be relatable to all ages and various literacy stages and finally the degree of satisfaction one gets after dropping a book i.e. Pamela’s thought about time wasting which would “pay off with a consistent interpretation or a firm position, one that excludes conflict, contradiction, equivocation and excess” (62). If going by my criteria, then YES Flush is definitely a literary canon.
Work Cited
Or perhaps, it is the intention behind the author’s work: if it’s for commercial or serious contemplation? Or maybe, it is the element of time wasting as Pamela described in her article, “"Flush and the Literary Canon: Oh where oh where has that little dog gone?" But if that is the case, then I am afraid I would not consider A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man canonical, because I consider it an immense waste of a week's time. However, my ENL 4321 instructor would disagree with me. If not, why then did she have the book as a text for a modern British Literature college class?
I am afraid that the answer to the question of criteria is exactly what is needed to be able to distinguish whether or not Flush classifies as a candidate for literary canonry. However, for this basis of this essay, I would veer into using the historical, social and artistic context as the criteria for judging whether Flush is actually a canonical text. Virginia Woolf, the author of Flush, is considered by many a modernist or feminist writer in the modernist era. And so, Flush is to be compared with the basis of modernist movement, and whether it stands up to par.
According to T. S. Eliot, “our civilization comprehends great variety and complexity which playing upon a refined sensibility, must produce various and complex results, so that literature of the modern moment must be difficult” implying that the texts of modernist era should not be straightforward and must be “hard for readers to find easy pleasure in” (Eliot 65, Matz 28). The modernist writers felt the need to make their works of fiction more realistic, which they interpreted to mean disorientating experience and also broken and obscure streams of stories. Therefore, if we base the criterion for literary canonry on that, then it is easy to see that Flush does not fit into such category, simple because it is so easy to read. However, I would prefer to refer Flush as the exception to the difficulty rule, the fact that not all “modern novelist saw modernity as cause to welcome confusion” (Matz 27).
However, if the criterion is the whether such text transcends its era and is applicable to the present time. Then it is very simple, Flush is befitting of such title. The simplicity of the text makes the events relatable. The themes in the text are universal, themes like aristocratic relevance, class distinction, power of love and changes of life are so timeless, that even for years to come someone will still be battling or experiencing such experience.
But if I were to make up the criteria for entry in canon status, I would probably list the ability to transcend through time, the adequate description of the time period- be it social or economic astuteness, the ability to be relatable to all ages and various literacy stages and finally the degree of satisfaction one gets after dropping a book i.e. Pamela’s thought about time wasting which would “pay off with a consistent interpretation or a firm position, one that excludes conflict, contradiction, equivocation and excess” (62). If going by my criteria, then YES Flush is definitely a literary canon.
Work Cited
Caughie, Pamela L.
"Flush and the Literary Canon: Oh Where Oh Where Has That Little Dog
Gone?" Tulsa Studies in
Women's Literature Redefining
Marginality 10.1 (1991): 47-66. Jstor.com.
ITHAKA. Web. 21 Jan. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/463951>.
Eliot, T. S. "The
Metaphysical Poets." Selected Prose of
T.S. Eliot. Ed. Frank Kermode. London: Faber and Faber, 1975. Print.
Kershner, R. B. The Twentieth-Century
Novel: An Introduction. Boston: Bedford, 1997. Print.
Matz, Jesse. The Modern Novel: A
Short Introduction. Blackwell, 2004. Print.
Comments
Post a Comment