Cannons for Canons
In junior high and high school I, like many of us, was assigned various books from the so-called canon of English-language literature. Usually I read them; sometimes I even liked them. When I didn’t, I chalked it up either to sullen juvenile immaturity (”I wasn’t ready for that book sophomore year.”) or the method–or mere fact–of pedagogy (”I bet I would’ve loved that book if it hadn’t been an assignment.”).
Never did I attribute dislike of a book to its merits or lack thereof. The message, delivered overtly or covertly, depending on the teacher, was that the canonical works were innoculated against anything as jejune as criticism based on aesthetic merit. Whether the underlying priniciple was that the books were good because they were in the canon (or in the canon because they were good) or that because they were in the canon, whether or not they were good was irrelevant, I learned the lesson well. Only as an adult, encountering some of these books on my own, have I started to realize that being considered part of the literary canon is no guarantee against a bad book.
I mention this because I just finished Moby Dick. This was a first read for me; somehow I’ve managed to miss it all this time. I should have kept missing it. I see what Melville was trying to do, but I don’t think he did it. And while I realize that novels were supposed to do different things in Melville’s time than are today’s novels, I adore some works from his contemporaries (I’m even a fan of “Bartleby, the Scrivener”) and feel Moby Dick falls short even by the literary standards of its own time. But I never would have felt comfortable saying that in my youth.
Roasting the sacred cows of your childhood: maybe that’s what being a grown-up is about.
