Canon and its changes

A society, in order to develop itself, has as a fundamental background the need for change and renewal. Changes have always occurred within the course of history, and their main role was to lead humanity towards new ways of perceiving reality. They occur in an increasingly rhythm, having implications upon individuals perspective on life, helping humanity to reshape its scale of values. Culture and art, as prominent instances in society are nevertheless omitted. In this respect, canon changes play an important role in reshaping and establishing a proper position for literature, the art which uses the word as its main instrument of creation. What is in fact canon and why is it so important that is changes be understood in a coherent manner? As I see things, canon is a term whose widely understanding lies in the fact that it represents a set of commonly accepted norms and values. These, on their turn, are subject to relativity, given the fact that they are established through a subjective point of view, by various writers at different times in the course of history. The theories canon enforces have to do with the probable way a work of art should be written and the relationship which establishes between its narrative instances. The reason due to which certain features are accepted and adopted as being canonical is mainly because of their theoreticians, namely the writers. They have managed to offer, through their writings, a comprehensive description of the modalities in which a work should be written and perceived, thus having a tremendous contribution to the development of a further report between mankind and literature. Briefly, a canonical author is that one who enlightens all sorts of readers, at any point in history, through the mastery of his creation. The purpose of the present work is to give a detailed analysis of the way canon changes towards time and history, and this in order for each of us to achieve comprehension of the importance this phenomenon has on the advised readers of literature. In doing so, I will start my investigation from Brian McHales quotation in Constructing Postmodernism. What he states in that excerpt is, in my opinion, a very simple and basic principle that should be fulfilled in communication. Although the idea is expressed in a rather complicated language, its essence can easily be understood: the fundamental principle for a successful act of communication implies the existence of an addresor and an addressee. One cannot fulfil the process of transmitting any kind of information, as long as no one is willing to capture the message. The excerpt gains significance in the literary field by identifying the addresor with the writer and

the addressee with the reader. Thus, a relation between narrative instances is shaped. This relationship is at the basis of canon construction and it is from this perspective that the six texts under discussion will be looked upon. In the attempt of emphasising canon and its changes, the first fragment offers an initial perspective in this regard. One can easily identify the third person narration of a subjective witness, who expresses his own vision and opinions regarding social aspects of his time. These include women position, their aspiration towards independence and towards the unknown, the attraction of the urban environment, alterity and diversity within society, and are all prefigurations of modern ideas. The use of the personal pronoun I does not correspond with the role attributed by McHale, but expresses a personal opinion of the writer, without any implication of you, the addressee. By referring to the Reader in the third person singular, any possible intersubjectivity between the two is annihilated. Hence, no act of communication is to be found because the addressee does not occupy an active part in the text, the relation between narrative instances being quite undefined. A slight shift of perception can be perceived in the second fragment. From the age of Renaissance and Enlightenment, dominated by rationality, one swiftly moves towards the Victorian conceptions of moral and ethics. In the literary filed, the concept of the narrator as the Manager of the Performancelooking into , as a director, is to be found. Although having an omniscient position in the development of the action, the narrative is constructed in the form of a performance, wisely and attentively guided by its director. Canon changes do not only occur on this dimension of a guided action seen as a performance, but in the relation between the reader and the writer or the writer and its characters. The author allows the story to reveal itself because the curtain will be up presently, although he agrees not with the way his characters act. In the same time, he must assure himself of the fact that every category of readers will be able to identify themselves at one point or another in the course of the action. Thus, by creating scenes of all sorts for various types of personalities, the author is aware of mankinds diversity, which he is ready to face through a proper writing. Last but not least, the authors positioning reveals a shift of canon because the narration is accompanied by appropriate scenery and brilliantly illuminated with the Authors own candels. This could only point to the concept of subjectivity, i.e. reshaping reality and presenting it in a literary work through the writers own filter of imagination. At the very beginning of the twentieth century, point at which modernism appeared in the European culture, tremendous changes have occurred in major areas of human environment. In this respect, modern literature came along with innovative terms. Canon had to

deal with a clearer and more distinctive set of changes. In analysing the excerpt from Joseph Conrads Lord Jim, the most striking fact regarding canon is that narration stops not immediately after the death of the protagonist. On the contrary, it continues with Jims glorious image after death: Not in the wildest days of his boyish visions could he have seen the alluring shape of such an extraordinary success! No boundaries exist any longer between such antagonistic terms as life and death. This idea of transcendence reflects an important shift of canon within modernity. The narrators implication into the fictional world points to a closer relation between the narrative instances; by stating He is one of us, the narrator of the fragment creates a strong bound between him and the other characters, he himself being a member of the group he earlier mentioned. Thus, there is no longer a clear boundary between I and you; canon shifts in the fact that those instances unite themselves in us. The character remains in an external relation with its narrator, who feels himself responsible with the reality of his existence. Defining yourself as an individual, trying to find yourself a place and a purpose in the contemporary society, this is among the most important issues Modernism has tried to offer an answer. At this point, the shift falls from the society to the individual. By advancing in the realm of history, the values of canon redefine themselves, coming closer to the rhetoric existential patterns: humanity, individuality and identity. The fragment from 1928 presents them through the dialogue of the two characters. The act of communication is fully achieved by the intermingling of the addresor and the addressee which in this case are the characters themselves. Here, the narrator allows his work to flow, without any restriction, in order to have his ideas about mankind expressed. Subjectivity is reinforced through the idea of relativity. In this respect, man is seen as a perfectly balanced individuality. Canon advances to the idea of an extended subjectivity and the presence of freedom in individual choices, which gives you a sense of responsibility: You can choose which you like, logic or life. Its a matter of taste. Some people prefer being dead. Moving forward to the new frame of mind which characterises the contemporary society, canon is again in the position of recreating its set of norms, which thus prove as being relative. The fifth fragment is a discourse containing various illustrations of nowadays society. The narrator does not have an specific reader, but his discourse is constructed so as to be perceived by the contemporary advised reader, one who fully understands the distopic aspects and deconstructive techniques implied in the act of narration. This is a violent discourse, constructed as an enumeration of chaotic terms, redefined towards deconstruction: East is West! Up is down! Yes is no! In is out! Lies are truth! Hate is love! Two and two makes five!

And everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds. The feeling of revolt against pre-established is obvious in rhetorical exclamation such as: That universal right is culturally specificThis imagine has been faked! Canon must cope with the shift of the individuals perception and adept itself to the new trend in literature, Postmodernism. Thus, an addressor conceives a discourse through innovative methods, with no other goal of that of the effect it produces to the addressee. The last fragment, taken from Ian McEwans Atonement underlines the ultimate change canon had to face - the authors status as the higher authority in the text, as a God: how can a novelist achieve atonement when, with her absolute power of deciding outcomes she is also God? I, the novelist must take full responsibility of his work, especially of its perception. He depicts his characters from the immediate reality and must not disguise anything, because of which he finds himself threatened by censorship: You may only libel yourself and the dead Think, yes, but not rightGo just so far as is necessary. The artist, thus, realises that: To be safe, one would have to be blind and obscure. Another important assertion connected to canon and expressed here is that the initial purpose of the author and the impression of verisimilitude diminish as the work of art advances and distances from the moment of its creation: When I am dead and the Marshalls are dead, and the novel is finally published, we well only exist as my inventions. The ultimate direction in canon change is the fact that the narrator of our text becomes the author of the text he is narrating about and also a character. Thus, the narrative instances mingle, while the boundaries between them fade away, by creating multiple masques belonging to the one and the same entity. By gathering all these textual personalities, the author/narrator/character becomes the supreme textual authority. There is no one above him he can relate to and ask for evaluation or atonement: There is no one, no entity of higher form that she can appear or be reconciled with, or that can forgive her. There is nothing outside her. To conclude, I consider canon and the changes that occur within it as worthy to be given a close investigation. Understanding them, along with their causality is of major importance for the advised reader of literature, who has to be able to make such associations. Nevertheless a proper comprehension and analysis of these changes within canon enlighten ones perception upon society and ease his or her integration in it.