Here's why:
* Subjectivity: Literary taste is subjective. What one person finds valuable and important, another might find tedious or irrelevant.
* Historical context: The canon has evolved over time. Works considered essential in one era might be deemed outdated or less relevant in another.
* Cultural diversity: The Western canon has traditionally been dominated by white European male voices. Recognizing the contributions of marginalized groups (women, people of color, LGBTQ+ writers) has led to calls for a more inclusive canon.
* Political and ideological shifts: Debates about what constitutes "great literature" often reflect broader societal values and power dynamics. This can lead to arguments about which authors and works should be prioritized or excluded.
* Ever-changing landscape: New works are constantly being published, raising questions about whether they should be incorporated into the canon and how they might change our understanding of literary history.
The debate about the canon is ongoing and likely to continue. While there may be some widely recognized figures (Shakespeare, Homer, Austen), the boundaries of the Western literary canon remain fluid and contested.
Some key arguments for and against the canon:
For:
* Provides a framework for understanding literary history and traditions.
* Highlights works of lasting importance and influence.
* Can inspire and inform future generations of writers.
Against:
* Can be exclusionary and perpetuate biases.
* Often reinforces a Eurocentric and patriarchal perspective.
* Can stifle innovation and exploration of new literary forms.
Ultimately, the value of any literary canon lies in its ability to foster critical thinking, encourage diverse perspectives, and spark meaningful discussions about the nature of literature and its role in society.