PATOGENIA DE Salmonella enteritidis EN AVES

2.5 Conclusion

In this chapter we have explored critical works by Matthew Arnold, Q.D. Leavis, F.R. Leavis and Terry Eagleton. The purpose of this has been to illustrate how critics through the last couple of centuries have treated the question of literary quality, and how they have considered the role of popular fiction. This further enables us to investigate the value of genre fiction and chick lit in light of traditional standards of literary value.

We have seen that Arnold insists on the importance of disinterested criticism to decide on the truly best literary works, and that these works should function as touchstones to all other works of literature. Q.D. Leavis expresses her opinion on popular literature as a

“smothering of the best by the inferior” (Leavis 1932, 115). In The Great Tradition, F.R.

Leavis seeks to establish a literary canon consisting of less than five novelists. Thus, we see how Arnold, Q.D. Leavis and F.R. Leavis all have a strict opinion of what should be

considered as Literature with a capital L. Furthermore, both Arnold and the Leavises consider popular fiction as something juxtaposed to, rather than something encompassing literary quality.

Eagleton on the other hand claims that literary canons are the products of an arbitrary authority: “the chancy nature of literary canons…is nowadays quite widely recognized, along

with the truth that some groups have been unjustly excluded from them” (Eagleton 2008, 208). Where Arnold and the Leavises were preoccupied with establishing objective truths about literary quality, Eagleton is concerned with the inevitably arbitrary and subjective nature of such an enterprise. Eagleton’s criticism thus challenges previous perceptions of literary quality and value. By questioning how we should understand and make use of the term competence, Eagleton touches upon the fundamental question of literary authority: “Is there only one kind of competence, and by whose and what criteria is competence to be measured” (Eagleton 2008, 108)?

Exploring Eagleton’s work in comparison to the ideas of Arnold and the Leavises has offered us a brief account of some of the ways in which literary value and quality has been understood since the late nineteenth century. Furthermore, Eagleton’s Literary Theory demonstrates the importance of reflecting critically upon how notions like literary value and quality are defined. One way of further exploring literary value and quality is to consider literary authority: in the next chapter we will investigate how both Harold Bloom and Janice Radway have engaged with the issue of “what to read”. Both Bloom’s The Western Canon and Radway’s A Feeling for Books deal with reading advice. We will explore how Bloom and Radway offer two different perspectives on what the general reading public should read.

Moreover, the question of literary authority will be essential: what makes a literary evaluation valuable? Thus, we will continue to explore the complexity of defining literary quality and value.

3. “Says who?” — Literary Evaluation, Value and Authority

3.1 Introduction

The distinction that Eagleton makes between ‘value’ and ‘pleasure’ illustrates what will be the topic of chapter 3: how literary value relates to the pleasure of reading. We will

investigate two different examples of reading advice: Harold Bloom’s The Western Canon (1995), and the Book-of-the-Month Club as it is depicted by Janice Radway. Both Bloom and the Book-of-the-Month Club address the general reading public with their advice on what to read. Still, we will see that they represent two different ways of understanding a valuable reading experience, because what is it that makes a book valuable? Taking a closer look at Bloom’s The Western Canon and Radway’s A Feeling for Books will demonstrate how a

question like “is chick lit valuable reading material” must necessarily be followed by “how do we decide”. This chapter will show that there is no simple answer to the question of what constitutes valuable reading material.

In The Western Canon (1995), Bloom discusses literary value by placing Shakespeare at the centre of the canon. Bloom claims that Shakespeare functions as a touchstone for all other literary works. He argues that the great works of the Western literary tradition are what we should turn to when choosing what to read. Bloom’s belief in universal literary

touchstones demonstrates his connection to both Arnold and the Leavises. This chapter will begin by taking a closer look at Bloom’s view on what we should read, and his understanding of literary value.

Bloom has a determinate opinion of what the literary canon should look like and how to judge the literary value of a work. But what gives Bloom the authority to define literary value? This issue will be investigated through Barbara Herrnstein Smith’s essay

‘Contingencies of Value’, which appeared in the anthology Canons, edited by Robert von Hallberg (1984). The essay by Smith has been chosen because it offers some perspectives and thoughts on literary value that problematizes Bloom’s views particularly well. In the essay, Smith looks into the development of evaluation in literary studies and the validity of literary evaluations. She claims, like Eagleton, that a universal, objective evaluation of literary quality is not possible. Moreover, she highlights the role of the individual common reader in the process of defining literary value.

The role of the common reader is further illuminated in Richard Ohmann’s article

‘The Shaping of a Canon: U.S. Fiction, 1960-1975’ and Kaplan and Rose’s study of

canonization in ‘The Power of the Common Reader: The Case of Doris Lessing’. Kaplan and Rose also comment on the effects of commercial forces on the field of literary evaluation.

One example of such a commercial force is the Book-of-the-Month Club. In The Making of Middlebrow Culture, Joan Shelley Rubin explains the-Book-of-the-Month Club’s role in the emergence of middlebrow culture in the United States in the early twentieth century. By comparing the activities of the Book-of-the-Month Club to that of canon formation, Rubin offers us a new perspective on the question of canonicity: can a literary canon be established based on popular interests rather than academic criticism? The possibility that canonicity does not have to be academically anchored alters the way genre fiction should be judged, and is thus particularly interesting for the present investigation of literary value and the position of chick lit. Can reading advice such as those offered by book clubs really be compared to literary canons? Or is such a comparison rather undermining the canon and professional

literary criticism? If so, what exactly are the differences between professional criticism and reading advice offered by institutions such as the Book-of-the-Month Club?

The Book-of-the-Month Club will be further explored as it is depicted by Janice Radway in her A Feeling for Books: The Book-of-the-Month Club, Literary Taste, and Middle-Class Desire (1997). The purpose of this will be to show how an academic, literary critic such as Harold Bloom and a commercial enterprise such as the Book-of-the-Month Club are both addressing the general reading public with their advice on reading. How do these two approaches to literary value differ? And ultimately, how do we assess the authority of their work?

The question of literary authority will be essential to this chapter’s discussion of reading, value and pleasure. The Western Canon and the monthly picks of the Book-of-the-Month Club are both examples of reading recommendations addressed to the common reader.

But how do we value these recommendations? Harold Bloom is not reluctant to establish a literary canon of works that we should all strive to read. But what makes his opinion on literary quality a valid one? Let us take a closer look at the literary critic Harold Bloom and his idea of literary value.