Cobrzan Ramona-Alina 3rd year, RO-EN

Canon and its changes

Our perception of art has changed during history and the canon makes no exception to the rule. This has been influenced by many intrinsic and extrinsic factors, such as history, society and culture. Time has left a mark on the evolution of human kind, and this continuous change of mentality led to the creation of literary currents and many more. Human nature doesnt change, only the perception of the world changes. We witness the change towards visual, image and now the emphasis is not on what is written and on how it is written. Thus, the canon, which has a rich esthetical value with an unconventional style, opens the path towards individual imagination. This means that the imaginary world of literature has no limits. The originality of the literature canonises the work and the author, the pieces of literature being brought to light by originality and weirdness. Change means development, and authentic and innovative development leads to modernism and modernity. Originality and creativity are the basic characteristics of a work which is called canon, and the author of such a piece of writing astonishes trough his incredible way of perceiving things. The quotation which precedes these fragments makes reference to the act of communication, explaining that a text is a way of communicating something. In this process we notice symmetry of the function of the personal pronouns you and I. This act of communication requires the presence of the author in the text in order to establish a relation of complementarity between the author and the reader, and thus we join a circuit based on a standard communicational pattern (sender-messagereceiver). The first fragment illustrates a first step towards the change of the canon, namely the womans condition in society, the womans need to be free from all the rules and restrains imposed to her in that era. We have a third person narration, the narrator having an objective view and the description can be made with no connection to the era and the issues which are presented. Through the eyes of this witness1

narrator we see the condition of women in society the limited world they had to live in and their struggle to gain their independence, their great desire to explore unknown places and things. This perspective changes when appears the personal pronoun I, as a mark of the interference of the narrator, who inserts in the fragment his own opinion related to the social problems of those times although I think it is the most delicious spot of ground in the world . The picture is complete because we remark another person the Reader but this does not involves himself in the narration, so we cannot establish a clear relation between the reader and the narrator or the text. As we move on to the next fragment, we are put in front of a different story, where the narrator plays a different role. We jump into a chaotic world with an omnipresent narrator who plays the role of a theatre director (so we talk about a world perceived as a theatre). Still, we are left to judge this performance on our own, because the story reveals itself (the curtain will be up presently) step by step. To be more precise the land which is been described is Vanity Fair, (...) not a moral place, certainly; nor a merry one though very noisy. We see a vague tendency of subjectivism at the author, when he describes the categories of people, inserting every now and then personal remarks, derived from the analysis of the characters, using his principles. This plot assures the passage to an urban world with all its advantages and disadvantages. Unlike the first fragment we see in this one that there is a certain connection between the author and the reader, connection made possible through the question How are you? Because the whole scene is a kind of a visual metaphor for the diversity of the world, the author uses it in order to introduce a subtle moral analysis and invites every reader to identify himself or herself with one of the two categories of people. The change of the canon that appears in this fragment refers to some additional accessories to the normal course of the world subject to certain laws (accompanied by appropriate scenery and brilliantly illuminated with the Authors own candles). This can be interpreted as a recreation of the world, giving it a new outfit, because it is filtered through the narrators imagination. In the third fragment, we deal with a narrator who is emotionally implicated in what he writes. The perspective is changed, the emphasis being now on feelings, on the sensations of the person who dies, on the impact of the crowd which takes part at 2

the action. Death is visualised and the author, as a good movie director emphasizes the details and the gestures. The narrator is deeply touched by death and feels that he acted in a wrong way (he has contrition). He is overwhelmed and at a certain moment he has the feeling that his soul is near, he even sees it passing through the profane world towards the world of the shadows. The visual and the emotional elements play an important role in this text the human element being the main subject. On what concerns the involvement of the narrator, we have as proof the presence of the personal pronoun I/we. The second and the third have the purpose of filling the empty space between the narrator/text and the reader. With other words there is a kind of dialogue. The connection between the two entities is established by using the pronouns we and us ( But we can see him, an obscure conqueror of fame). A possible interpretation that can be given to this quotation is that the author makes no distinction between him and the rest of the people, meaning he doesnt considerate himself better than the rest, he is an ordinary man. Progress means sacrifice, it means enriching the personality of the author, which leads to a sharper critical spirit. This time we dont deal with a narrator who knows everything, because some of the information comes from others ( They say that the white man sent right and left (....) ). In other words, this fragment renders several messages from several sources including him. The canonical change is more obvious in the next paragraph, focusing on human nature. Man, with his grief, becomes an important object of study in literature. In philosophical works we find a narrator who is preoccupied with our mental peace, with finding solutions for the severe problems that may appear at a mental level and which destabilize the human. Equilibrium is the key to solving personality problems, to the wish of being perfect and to reach the highest level in an imperfect world. The dialogue that is established between two characters creates a strong bond, similar to the one from the communicational act that Brian McHale was talking about. A very strong idea of relativity appears during the dialogue, which means that there are no strict rules. This canon from 1928 militates for subjectivity on what concerns the individual choices, which means that everyone is free to chose whatever he/she likes (You can choose which you like, logic or life. Its a matter of taste. Some people prefer being dead).

The feeling of overwhelming sadness extends to the fifth fragment too, where we find another narrator facing the problems of modern life. In his violent monologue addressed to the society, the narrator identifies himself with the character and the reader. The fragment contains at the end an enumeration of chaotic terms, of contradictions which create a deconstructive structure 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. Everything keeps moving and changing, life doesnt exist anymore, and it is only an illusion. Then everything reduces to something normal, monotonous, death doesnt exist anymore and nor does God. Everything vanished. By this violent discourse, by the wish to change everything but mostly by getting rid of the clichs of the previous culture, the vanguard narrator plays with the words and with their meaning. In his desperate attempt to bring something genuine in order to impress, he creates a chaotic discourse. On what concerns the last paragraph, here the canon change is the fact that the narrator identifies himself with the author, thus we have a situation of communication. The author asks himself a series of questions on what concerns his condition as a writer in postmodernism period. The fundamental problem of the contemporary man is both his ephemeral creation and his ephemeral existence as a writer. The role of the writer in postmodernism is the core of this fragment, the narrator asking himself the question What are novelists for? The narrator feels that he has limited power and that because of the society. His literary work is thus conditioned. He is more than aware that his creation wont be published, wont be brought into light until after his death. But this will definitely diminish its verisimilitude, but that doesnt mean that its esthetical value will diminish too (When I am dead and the Marshalls are dead, and the novel is finally published, we well only exist as my inventions.). The narrative instances disappear, so there is no clear distinction between the author, the narrator and the character. In the end, by mixing these three narrative instances we obtain only one which leads to a status of superiority of the author over his work and the reader. 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.

The literary canon of the 21st century can be regarded as the possibility of every literary work to be reconstructed. This reconstruction is the result of a successive attack upon the standard narrative patterns. Perspective on life changes and implicitly on art too. The canon involves visual and interpretative perspectives. This evolution, by a kind of deconstruction, makes the difference between past and present. This difference actually means that the present is not affected by the mistakes made in the past, while the past cannot change itself.