Elitism is good
Deep Dives
Explore related topics with these Wikipedia articles, rewritten for enjoyable reading:
-
Northrop Frye
13 min read
The article references Frye as 'a very great critic' and mentions a 'Northrop Frye-lite approach' to literary criticism. Understanding Frye's archetypal criticism and his influence on the Western literary canon provides essential context for the debate about canonical standards in literature departments.
-
Harold Bloom
16 min read
Bloom is mentioned as 'that notable elitist' who defended the Western canon while also enjoying baseball. His controversial book 'The Western Canon' and his battles against what he called the 'School of Resentment' are directly relevant to this article's defense of literary elitism.
-
Value pluralism
13 min read
The author explicitly identifies as 'a pluralist' and argues that 'there are many different forms of the good' that may be incommensurable. Isaiah Berlin's concept of value pluralism is the philosophical foundation for the article's argument that we can maintain canonical standards while recognizing multiple legitimate goods.
Recently, , who writes , has been producing essays about the nature of the academic humanities and literary culture. I’m enjoying them. He wrote a series about “how to interpret a text” which explains a variety of critical ideas about literature.
And he reviewed How to Read Like a Professor, a popular book that teaches basic principles of literary criticism. (I don’t think it’s an especially good book, but I’m fine with its Northrop Frye-lite approach: Frye was a very great critic.)
These essays have led Isaac to reflect on the nature of literary criticism in the academy and for the public, such as here on Substack.
I shall confess that Isaac has made some conclusions with which I am in deep sympathy, such as—
… in dismantling the canon—in largely doing away with the idea that there is a single set of books that everyone ought to read—English professors have had a hand in their own undoing…
This is music to my ears.
It’s vain to deny that a lack of canonical standards is not only alienating to students but undermines the whole purpose of having a literature department.
Once we evaluate literature on its political, historical, or other merits, without any binding constraints of canonical standards, then we are denying the idea of good or better, and so we are starting to deny the idea of authority.
If you are an expert in works of literature (or culture) that are not good or better, and you promulgate theories of culture that encourage that leveling attitude, you can hardly be surprised when people go looking for ideas of the good elsewhere. (I am assuming the existence of the good because it takes too long to argue: that’s for another time. If you want to deny it, good luck to you.)
Some things are good; some are better; this is, to most people, sheer common sense. So it is with books.
However, insisting on the idea of the good or better, we stand to alienate people in another way. Here’s another conclusion Isaac has reached:
… it’s useful to remember that many—maybe most—people didn’t like English class. Maybe they even feel like it ruined literature or poetry for them.
In his most recent essay, ‘Literary Elitism’, Isaac takes this further. He asked his own students “how they think the university has changed the way ...
This excerpt is provided for preview purposes. Full article content is available on the original publication.