|
A writer forwarded to us the good news that Miguel
Syjuco, now working in Montreal, won the Man Asian Literary Prize
for his novel Ilustrado with the note “recently ‘canonized,’
would you say?” The judges said the novel which “covers a
large and tumultuous period” possesses “formal ambition,
linguistic inventiveness and socio-political insight.” I
have to get my copy soon.
The note “recently canonized”
anticipates the coming Philippine PEN conference on the subject of
“canonization” in Philippine literature on 6 December at the
Cultural Center of the Philippines.
Last month the organizers had a
brief but spirited discussion of the conference theme “Literature
from the Margins: Changes in the Canon” which literary
critic and scholar Resil Mojares will address in a keynote speech.
The “canon” (derived from a
church term) refers to the body of writings (imaginative or
discursive) that has been recognized as “standard or
authoritative” texts. Students in literature are of course
familiar with works which their teachers say have passed the “test
of time.” Hence, the classics or the “great tradition” in
literature. Matthew Arnold talked about “the best that is thought
of and known” while T. S. Eliot said “the literature of the
present cannot be truly appreciated if it is not understood in
relation to its antecedents.”
Philippine literature textbooks
invariably list Francisco Balagtas, Jose Rizal, Aurelio Tolentino,
Lope K. Santos, Amado Hernandez, to name a few writers in Filipino,
and Jose Garcia Villa, Salvador P. Lopez, Manuel Arguilla, Nick
Joaquin, NVM Gonzalez, Francisco Arcellana, and F. Sionil Jose
among the standard authors in English. An editor can easily
get into an argument by including or excluding names in any
so-called “the best” list.
I remember an American New Critic
in the 50s tried to “deconstruct” Rizal’s novels in a
formalistic manner, in effect saying they were faulty structurally.
The natives ignored his comment.
Nowadays the
“canonicity” of an author is measured by the number of literary
awards or prizes (local or foreign) he/she has received.
Hence, the adjective “multi-awarded” in a hierarchy leading to
the “Hall of Fame.” The highest accolade, it seems, is the
National Artist for Literature award. The title “National
Treasure” is also given to artists in indigenous communities; in
literature it is for curatorship (i.e. performance) of
remembered epic cycles.
In canon formation there would be
(1) repeated references to an author or work by critics, (2) the
currency of their work within the general community, and (3) the
inclusion of the author or work in the school curriculum. (cf.
Joseph Childers and Gary Hentz, The Columbia Dictionary of Literary
and Cultural Criticism). I remember Estrellita Valeros-Gruenberg
made a study of the Philippne canon by showing the frequency with
which teachers refer to local authors in her survey. Of course, most
teachers would tend to reproduce the literary curriculum taught them
in universities.
Today the departments of
literature in UP Diliman include courses in emergent literatures
such as what the PEN conference will discuss:
struggle/people’s literature, gender-based writing, and
others which once were ignored in formalist-oriented literary
establishments in the academe and publishing houses. Now the genres
have been expanded from the traditional quartet (poetry, fiction,
drama, and essay) to include “creative non-fiction” (e.g.
biography) and popular and folk forms such as the “composo” in
Negros, “ismayling” in Samar, and “baliling” in Mindanao.
The “testimonio” or recorded oral expressions particularly among
oppressed women has also been studied by Pat Arinto who taught
English in UP Tacloban. Theses and dissertations on gay
culture and writing have also been produced, among the first is Neil
Garcia’s work in Diliman.
The question of “good” and
“bad” writing always comes up in discussing literature from the
periphery but it is interesting to trace these terms as used to
their ideological roots. Invariably the formalist standard is always
upheld.
Terry Eagleton (The Function of
Criticism) sees the formalist reading as insulating the students
from “the contexts of literature, possible only if historical or
Marxist criticism were employed.” In fact the latter
approach was discouraged during the Cold War – giving rise to New
Criticism in the 40s and 50s. Now the academe knows better and
has opened doors to contextual approaches and the literature of the
marginalized sectors.
Trevor Ross (in the Encyclopedia
of Contemporary Literary Theory) notes that some critics suggest
abandoning the canon altogether because it is inherently exclusive
or elitist. Perhaps so in the dominant culture in which
writers in the cities practice their craft. But now it is
possible to talk of the canon of emergent writings (guided by its
own aesthetics) instead of being subsumed in the canon of the
dominant culture In an unstable society any radical change in
social relations will give rise to a new literary canon.
|
