Intertextual Analysis Essay Example

the limitations of the hitherto established English canon being taught in universities worldwide. Post-modern societies’ study of multiple silences such as those of women, aboriginals, colonized communities as well as gay and queer groups necessitated the creation of a literary canon which would fill the gaps with representation given to these marginalized groups. This was most significantly illustrated in the productions of such established texts as The Norton Anthology of Women Writers (1984) and the multiple volumes The Norton Anthology of World Literature (1995) both of which attempted to offer an alternative canon of literary studies. These anthologies, while succeeding to address the issue of hitherto silenced communities, is not without its limitations in terms of the politics of canon formation.

Problematics in the Emerging Canon

It has been increasingly seen that, in the process of creating a post-colonial canon, the inherent dangers of creating an alternate list of ‘greats’ is always around the corner, with evermore increasing lists of works vying to be part of it. Thus, while the academic world has, by and large, succeeded in addressing the major lapses in the way literature is studied in different parts of the world, it is not, in the alternative offered, devoid of problematics of inclusion. In a very real sense, the canon itself is in danger of becoming ‘cosmopolitan’ (Wilson et al. 4). This study is an attempt to sketch the history of canon formation and examine the way in which the post-colonial canon emerges as being, itself, inadequate to right the wrongs of the literary enterprise. Having explored the conceptual possibilities of the canon itself, this study will explore the limitations

of the canon as it presently stands, etching out some of the issues that remain 304

controversial and in need of address. It will also attempt to suggest ways in which the increasing tensions of rival possibilities could be addressed in order to create ways of reading literary texts that are inclusive and expressive of changing realities.

Defining the Literary Canon

The American Heritage Dictionary defines the term canon as ‘an authoritative list, as of the works of an author’ and ‘a basis for judgment, standard; criterion’ (Landow, 1). The assumed reality is that the canon accords privileges to a text for posterity, elevating it to a status much above the works that may not have been included in it. While the canon is widely accepted in academic circles, it is subject to change, very often due to changes in the political and social sphere. Thus the literary canon which existed in the western world included the most established works of Greek and Latin writers including Homer’s The Odyssey and The Iliad, the early thirteen century works of Chaucer, the Renaissance dramas of Marlowe and Shakespeare, followed by the works of Milton.

This was then succeeded by the Romantic poetry of Wordsworth, Keats and others and the Victorian poems and novels of Arnold, Thomas Hardy, Charles Dickens and others. The modern period is then represented by such writers as T. S. Eliot, James Joyce, and William Golding. As the canon expanded to include American writers, Mark Twain and Hawthorne became essential reading, followed by Walt Whitman and Ernest Hemingway. This is a canon well represented by such theoreticians as Lytton Strachey’s

Eminent Victorians (1918), F. R. Leavis’ The Great Tradition (1948) and Boris Ford’s The Pelican Guide to English Literature (1955).

Harold Bloom’s more recent book The Western Canon includes various works from different parts of the world, using a criteria which sets it apart from more established definitions of canon, owing particularly to its size. Bloom’s stand against the growing commercial expectations of the universities points to a way in which literature should be read in contemporary society: “We are destroying all intellectual and aesthetic standards in the humanities and social sciences, in the name of social justice”. He claims that the canon exists so that we can encounter ‘authentic aesthetic power’ and ‘aesthetic dignity’ (qtd. by Mairesse, nd.), placing it directly in opposition to increasing studies on marginalization and silences.

Limitations in the Western Canon

It is clear that the canon as it continued to be projected and studied until the middle of the twentieth century was found to be deficient on a number of counts. As canons are primarily guided by changes in social and political events, it was inevitable that the tumultuous changes in the worldview following the rise of feminism and post-colonial nations would have a direct effect on the way in which its expressions in literature could be viewed. While there was little doubt that a canon, as it hitherto existed, was voicing the discourse of the white, western male, it was imperative that the rapidly emerging voices be represented.

The emerging feminist works of women such as Kate Millet and Judith Fellerly showed the way in which literary studies were primarily representative of a very

specific, limited part of society. An attempt to re-direct the way in which literature would be more equally read was made by the publication of The Norton Anthology of Women Writers: The Traditions in English in 1985. Edited by Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar, this edition was seen as being a landmark attempt to re-read literary history, giving voices to women in both the literary and social context across generations.

The Post-Colonial Canon

Just as feminist concerns began to be expressed through creations of alternate canons of literature, the freedom movements across the globe in the middle of the twentieth century called for an urgent reinterpretation of the worldview, particularly as expressed in literary works. Some of the most famous theoreticians who were instrumental in calling for the representation of the ‘voiceless’, of course, included Frantz Fanon and Edward Said. Both helped to unearth the hidden agendas of western literature and thought to explore the insidious ways in which eastern or oriental ways of life were projected through the lenses of western assumptions. The immediate result of these studies was the examinations of literatures of various different parts of the world, where each region is explored and wrested with issues which were particularly relevant to their societies. This took different forms in different regions across the globe. While Africa primarily grappled with the issue of language use, particularly as examined by writers such as Nguigi Wa’Thiong and explored its own societies, as in the works of Wole Soyinka, the Indian subcontinent attempted to reach beyond its many languages to study its common past in Sanskrit as well as codify the growth of

its own literature in English (Iyengar, 1945). In South America, writers such as Gabriel Màrquez began to experiment with new forms of writing such as magical realism in order to be able to tell a unique story in a unique manner.

The ramifications of these varieties of literatures sprouting in different parts of the world had a tremendous impact on the academic departments across the world, particularly in the literature departments where the English canon as it stood could no longer be accounted for as the most authentic form of discourse. Increasingly, various studies such as those of Gorak (1991) and Bahri (2006) began to view the established literary canon as being Eurocentric and called for a wider inclusion of texts from across the globe in order to reflect changing realities. By the turn of the twenty-first century, the universities were able to largely respond to these changes by incorporating, within their structure, such post-colonial areas as border writing, exile and literature, diaspora and identity studies.

The Rise of the Post-Colonial Canon

While the literary canon as it has stood over the last twenty or thirty years has gone a long way in solving the imbalance of a western dominated discourse, it has created, in its wake, a variety of other complexities. By its very definition, post-colonialism or even postcolonialism without its hyphen points to a binarism that was sought to be obliterated in the narrative of the post-modern world. By focusing on literature that continues to be defined on the basis of its geographical origin, a ‘West vs rest’ form of dialectic, the postcolonial canon remains guilty of re-asserting the norm,

albeit with different considerations.

Secondly, these binaries upon which the canon is based is increasingly disappearing, given the realities of globalization in which multiple migrations, access to travel and information and the movement of goods and ideas are so easily made. For instance, most of Indian writing in English is published outside the country by men and women who live in India (Kiran Desai, Amitav Ghosh). Many Caribbean writers such as V.S. Naipaul and Derek Walcott live in England while they speak of experiences in their homeland. Other novelists such as Michael Oondatjee and Rohington Mistry are now based in Canada although they speak of their native countries in much of their writings. Associating these writers with any one particular geographical location is, thus, problematic and makes the establishment of a literary canon anachronistic.

Emerging Issues in the Post-Colonial Canon

The most significant limitation of the post-colonial canon, however, is the fact that in the course of establishing a network of writers who could stand against the predominant narrative, a counter canon has rapidly emerged whose claims for legitimacy has begun to be questioned. Deepika Bahri (2003) aptly deals with the notion that emerging counter canon privileges specific texts which have successfully accessed the western market at the expense of numerous local narratives. Further, Brians (2006) and others have also studied the way in which the canon admits only those whose writings in some way are seen to directly challenge the narrative of colonialism and therefore could be read as victimized. For instance, R.K. Narayan, an Indian novelist who does not deal with the political ramifications of empire, is never part of

this new canon, neither is Nadime Gordimer, who, as a white writer may not be perceived as being sufficiently marginal.

Establishing a ‘counter-canon’

It appears that as long as canons exist in the study of literature, pleas for inclusions and exclusions will continue. Debarah Madsen, in her examination of native American literature states that “(d)espite a great deal of discussion about metaphors of centre versus margin and metropolis versus outpost or offshoot, the post-colonial canon remains comprised both of privileged texts and also of privileged national and regional literatures: the English language literatures of Africa, India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South East Asia and the Caribbean” (Madsen, 1). In much the same manner, Nirmala Menon (2010) suggests that a number of native texts, particularly from the Indian subcontinent have not received enough attention and that it was time for literature to move beyond the binaries of centre-periphery to examine local literatures.