I think what I find interesting about all the conversations about expanding the Canon is that I've yet to see one, and this is almost certainly my ignorance, that considers the Canon's role in making the world comprehensible to its readers.

I don't read the Canon because I think they're the best books, most well written, the ones that speak to me the most. I read them because they make the rest of my culture make sense, because they have BEEN read by other people who make my culture, and are referenced extensively.

Now there's a lot of leeway there! I used a lot of slippery words like "my culture" and others, we can debate about what that might mean, practically. But I guess what I mean is, what if a Canon is: the books you have to read before you can read other books?

Take the Bible for instance. You may love it. You may hate it. You may have a nuanced opinion based on your extensive knowledge of other extant ancient Near Eastern epics and literatures. But at the end of the day, a huge amount of books in world literature grapple with the Bible

By the definition of Canon I'm using (which again, doesn't have to be yours) that makes the Bible a canonical book! A Book you have to read to make sense of other books!

By all means rewrite the canon. There are so many books that have influenced other books, in ways we have yet to deal with. I know, in the world of Jewish literature, that the canon for comprehending the great works of Jewish lit are different than the White, Male, European canon

But maybe we should talk about what the point of reading a canon is.