Read on Twitter
#ToCanonizeorNotToCanonize
Content Warning: This thread is written by an academic/romance writer who has opinions. FYI, this thread has been simmering for a bit and grows out of an essay I just finished. Also, I'm anti-canon. Periodt.
1/
Content Warning: This thread is written by an academic/romance writer who has opinions. FYI, this thread has been simmering for a bit and grows out of an essay I just finished. Also, I'm anti-canon. Periodt.
1/
At some point in an English (or a CompLit) major's life they come face to face with Harold Bloom's "The Western Canon" and it's glorification of the 26 writers that will civilize you. If you haven't read Bloom, no worries and no need. It's BS.
2/
2/
Just an argument for a set of authors an academic decided we must read & boom, a Literary Canon is born. A "must be read list" to mark one's what...civilized subjectivity in Bloom's mind.
3/
3/
Within academic circles, to call something canonical is to confer elite status on it. To mark its superiority, to distinguish it from *gasp* the ordinary. To make clear this distinction, field-specifc criteria are invented.
4/
4/
A literary canon does several things, most specifically it confers legitimacy within and without the field of literature-significant when we consider both academic and non-academic perceptions about the romance novel as a non-literary genre.
5/
5/
The question I always ask when someone proposes a romance canon (ROMANCE IS LITERATURE) is, who decides? Who becomes the "Harold Bloom" for the Romance genre? Who makes the decision as to who is canonical, and who isn't?
6/
6/
What metrics/criteria will be used to construct the Canon? Where do you begin (and no, I don't begin with Austen)? How is the Canon to be used? As a required, suggested, recommended reading list? Finally, who is the Canon for?
7/
7/
The who is most important since that individual's persepective influences (read determines) who goes on the list. If you look to the academic scholarship on "popular romance" (i.e., post-Austen), you can see canon formation already in play.
8/
8/
The starting academic point most often: Austen, Heyer, Woodiwiss as the founding figures. Too often Ignored are the generations of non-white romance authors (late 19th & 20th century). This is headache-making for this academic.
9/
9/
My real opposition is, why and how. Why do we need to create a canon? For legitimacy? Hate to disappoint naysayers but Romance has been legit longer than the academic idea of Literature. How are choices made? How is the canonical list decided?
10/
10/
Do you canonize Sarah MacLean or Lydia San Andres? Alyssa Cole or Olivia Waite? Helen Hoang or Kristen Higgins? Sort by sub-genre: PNR, Hist, Contemp, RomCom, RomSuspense...? Do you annoint by awards? Who are the arbiters of romance canon formation?
11/
11/
Do you use GoodReads? How long is the list? Bloom chose 26, what limits will the arbiters of a Romance Canon set? Would the list ever change? Who decides? What other criteria are used to elevate one writer over another?
12/
12/
Canon formation de facto is based on exclusivity and present day Romance genre can't escape the institutional ideology that illogically declares it non-Literature, nor the white-centric, cis-het, and ableist ideologies behind that exclusivity.
13/
13/
I could go on but I'll stop. These thoughts are explored in depth elsewhere but they summarize my opinion as to why romance genre doesn't need a canon.
14/
*Typos brought to you by a wonky keyboard
14/
*Typos brought to you by a wonky keyboard
