In our current age of political correctness, one would think it would be tempting fate to attempt publication of a national literary canon.
Because definitions of both "national" and "canon" necessarily depend, as we saw in our post about the Great Books of the Western World, on a limited number of selections made by a limited number of people, disagreements are inevitable. That said, it hasn't stopped some publishers from making the attempt. Some attempts have been more successful than others.
One of the most notable such attempts has been La Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. Founded in the 1930s by Jacques Schiffrin, and long since an imprint of the distinguished French publisher Gallimard,
“La Bibliothèque de la Pléiade” presents reference editions of the great works of French and foreign literature and philosophy, printed on Bible paper and bound, with a full leather and gold cover.
Each year between 10 and 12 new titles are added to this elegant, practical and easy to read imprint. The texts are based on original manuscripts, editions and documents. The translations are new or revised. Previously unpublished material is presented whenever possible and the prefaces, entries and notes, written by specialists, await the lay reader and the researcher alike:
Although the 500+ titles that have been published thus far include important "foreign" authors such as Shakespeare and Jane Austen, the focus of La Bibliothèque de la Pléiade has always been primarily the classics of French literature -- the French "literary canon," as it were. And it was the successful example of this pioneering French publishing effort that gave rise, in 1979, to the establishment of The Library of America (LOA).
Long a dream of American literary critic Edmund Wilson, the first volumes in LOA's distinguished series were published only ten years after Wilson's death (1982). It should come as no surprise that LOA's "mission statement" closely resembles that of its French exemplar:
[t]he idea for The Library of America was first discussed among scholars and literary critics who were concerned that many works by America's finest writers were either out of print or nearly impossible to find. Without a deliberate publishing effort to preserve American writing, many important works would virtually disappear and be lost to future generations. Deprived of an important part of their cultural inheritance, Americans would lose a collective sense of the country's literary accomplishments.
In the quarter-century since, over 200 volumes have been published, leading the New York Times Book Review to hail The Library of America as the "quasi-official national canon" of American literature:
All LOA volumes are deliberately designed to withstand generations of use, as one would expect of volumes that are supposed to represent a national literary canon:
The paper is acid-free and meets the requirements for permanence set by the American National Standards Institute; it will not turn yellow or brittle. The books are bound with the grain of the paper to ensure that they open easily and lie flat without crinkling or buckling...
The binding cloth is durable woven rayon, dyed in the thread for richness of color. Handsome endsheets match the binding cloth and add to the visual unity of the series. The books are Smyth-sewn for permanence and flexibility, and each includes a ribbon marker....
Because the Library of America seeks to keep every volume it publishes permanently in print and widely available to readers, and because it -- like many other nonprofits --does not charge its patrons the full cost of the expenses it incurs to meet this mandate ("[t]o do so would make the volumes too costly for many people and thus severely limit the audience for the series"), LOA has always relied on contributions from donors to underwrite many of its expenses. This is an attractive way for folks who believe in LOA's "mission" to help ensure the long-term viability of the enterprise. But, as with any canon, there are critics.
While most folks probably would not disagree with Alcott or Emerson (above) being included in a canon of "American" literature, lots of critics have taken issue with many of LOA's other choices for inclusion in "the canon:"
In a recent article for Newsweek Malcolm Jones suggests that LOA may soon mean "Losing Our Authors" if The Library of America doesn't quit publishing "second-tier writer[s]" like those depicted above, all this happening, mind you, while LOA still ha[s] quite a few deceased mastodons left to corral—thanks to the intransigence of publishers and literary estates, there is as yet no LOA Ernest Hemingway, Marianne Moore, William Carlos Williams or T. S. Eliot. This sort of criticism seems to be especially directed at the various anthologies and other special publishing projects that LOA has undertaken in recent years.
Of course, as is the case with TV shows and films and other media productions which don't live up to one's own personal definition of "canonical," one always has the choice of simply not purchasing the proffered volume.
Folks who enjoy literary podcasts will find a number of these available from LOA (a link is included under Bookish Podcasts & Webcasts in the right-hand column of this blog). And folks who enjoy short stories will want to subscribe to LOA's weekly Story of the Week. LOA also has an excellent blog (a link to which you will find included in our Bookish Blogroll)....
Recent Comments