The Western literary canon appears to be a naturally occurring concept, a compilation of important literature that formed itself seamlessly. Like almost every other alleged “seamlessly” forming idea, the Western literary canon is an attempt to generalise literature for readers around the Western world — without said readers in regard. It is not a coincidence how the canon consists of works primarily by male, European, and/or rich authors — it is simply a decision made by the institutions that formed the Western literary canon. With the formation of such a concept based on an experience as subjective as reading, it was only time before people would begin to realise that for one’s voice to be heard, another’s was suppressed. This evoked questions from the general public, the most commonly asked being, ‘Who decides which books matter?’
The Western literary canon was not a suddenly occurring event, an overnight decision. There is no singular date or location that points to its beginning, and there is very little that we know of how it came to be. What we do know, however, is that its inception was possibly the publication of the book The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages by Harold Bloom in 1994. In his book, American literature critic Harold Bloom defended the idea of a literary canon, presenting 26 authors whose works he deemed classics. This list was made up of famous names like Shakespeare, Kafka, Chaucer, etc., but it lacked representation for too many people. The list of authors described in this book followed a very clear criterion: the writers were largely males and Europeans, and almost all of the writers came from cultures that possessed institutional power.
This shows that not only were European male writers favoured, but also that authors who were known to have widespread works were chosen. There is a clear pattern; if a writer was a part of society with institutional power, they didn’t have to work harder to spread their work, whereas a writer with equal talent but a less institutionalised society may have had to work even harder to get recognised.
The canon also discriminates against female authors, with only 3 out of 26 authors being females, which comes as very little surprise considering Harold Bloom’s words against feminist literary criticism (and a few other literary criticisms), calling it the “school of resentment”. His definition of “school of resentment” was the following: “usually defined as comprising all scholars who wish to enlarge the Western Canon by adding to it more works by authors from minority groups without regard to aesthetic merit or influence over time, or those who argue that some works commonly thought canonical promote sexist, racist or otherwise biased values and should therefore be removed from the canon.” Simply stated, it was a poor attempt to justify widespread prejudice against female writers.
After Harold Bloom, many people and institutions began discussions to add to the Western canon. Many people also debated Bloom, on different accounts, like ignoring writers from countries he was unfamiliar with or Bloom’s representation of the Western world being very narrow. As years pass by, people are beginning to realise that Bloom’s list consists of a lucky few writers that lack representation of many aspects of the Western world, like African Americans, females, non-European writers, and many more.
Recent attempts to expand the canon also remain futile. Some writers suggest demolishing the canon, as it feeds into the morally wrong white supremacist ideologies that were, quite objectively, the basis for the canon. Others suggest that the canon should not be abolished due to the reasoning that it provides a dynamic foundation for human culture. I cannot whole-heartedly agree or disagree with the concept of the canon, but one thing is clear: The concept of a canon generalises a subjective experience for a diverse audience, and it favours those in power. It lacks representation and only pushes the pro-misogynist and pro-white supremacist agenda while silencing the powerful voices of everyone who doesn’t fit their criteria. Who decides what is important, and why must we accept what is thrust upon us? To break free of these narrow views, we must see beyond the list, beyond the narrative.