I think it's more relevant to this discussion to question what use the Western Canon is, rather than whether it exists or not. (I also don't dispute its existence, but will also fight to the death about what is or is not on the list.) Does the WC have relevance to the books you read in your ordinary habits (and how)? Can you enjoy a book that was influential, but has aged badly? Does ignorance of a segment of the WC necessarily impair your ability to enjoy/benefit from another novel?

I took a great class in college about the Modernist Canon -- we read stuff in and out of the canon, and talked about why the things that made it in, did. Of course politics were a huge part of it. Damn, I loved that class, as over my head as I was.

I think that teaching someone how to read critically, so that one might find relevance in a work is most important

See, I don't get this. Relevance to who? This is why I don't read crit at all, and don't buy into its importance: I'm completely in the "I have my opinions on it, and there's no reason why my opinions of it should matter to anyone but me" corner.

Why do I have to read something critically? Why can't I read it for the only reason I find remotely acceptable: that the subject matter or the language causes an echo somewhere in me?

The quandary is in who makes those decisions; how does a canon develop and grow?

By the previously mentioned interesting arguments. A good example would be T.S. Eliot's essays which brought new attention to the Metaphysical poets, and also (if I recall correctly) Melville.

I've always been fascinated by works which seem strongly/obviously canonical in their time, but which fade pretty quickly as the years go by. See: John Dos Passos, Ford Maddox Ford.

Wm. Burroughs did a good job of pushing an alternative canon, plucking works by people like Huysmans (A Rebours) out of obscurity, which bolstered the aesthetic of the early Beats.

Other writers like Djuna Barnes sort of bubble along as a cult favorite until they get a push by some academic trend like Queer Lit Crit.

It's also interesting watching which genre writers find lasting influence and rise into canon. In the early to mid sixties I wonder how many folks would've predicted that Asimov would fade drastically and Phillip K. Dick would rise sharply. Chandler and Hammett, Grahame Greene and Le Carre. Eudora Welty's passion for Ross MacDonald was very influential.

Deb also makes a good point. Damn me and my seeing-both-sides-ness.

I rather liked Madame Bovary, inspite of the main characters. It was like a view into a world that I hadn't even considered before. It reminded me a bit of Vanity Fair, except that I found the latter a lot more fun.

I still have scarring from when my English Lit profs shot laser beams at me from their eyes on hearing that I didn't particularly care for Chaucer OR Conrad very much,

Oh yes. I went though the UNC-Chapel Hill English program with a massive hate-on for Faulkner. Some of the profs glared at me as if I'd eaten their puppies in front of them.

I rather like the idea of a Canon. Even the canonical stuff I don't much like (Dickens), or even loathe (Samuel Johnson), is interesting in how it reflects the tastes of the times.

See, I just read Hec's post. It's very learned and very distant and he talks about influence.

Hec, did you actually enjoy any of those writers? Did they tickle something, anything, other than the cerebral? Was there a kick in the soul for you, with one single book by any of those people?

I'm a writer and a reader. Talk to me. Not about the canon, or their influence - I'm a freak, and I don't give a damn about that. Talk to me about the books, and why the made you yell, or crack up, or think, or want to kiss someone.

Why do I have to read something critically? Why can't I read it for the only reason I find remotely acceptable: that the subjectg matter or the language causes an echo somewhere in me?

In all honesty, Deb, when it comes down to it- this is why I read. The child that read anything she could get her hands on clashes with the kicking-and-screaming critical reader that college tried to make me. I can say that for me as someone who loves to read and write, reading 'canonical' work critically, knowing exactly what I did or didn't like and why, has improved how I read. I don't, however, feel that anyone can put the stamp of 'literary' on someone else.

I fought to understand theory in college, and I still fight with it. Kind of makes my head hurt.

I think it's more relevant to this discussion to question what use the Western Canon is, rather than whether it exists or not.

I think its value is what it has always been - it allows a common set of cultural references. In this wise, it's not that different than the way this community uses ME shows as common tongue. It binds, it fosters jokes, it breeds the language, it provides allusions and parallels.

(I also don't dispute its existence, but will also fight to the death about what is or is not on the list.)

That's the fun of it! Unless you're Deb, then it's not fun, just aggravating.

Does the WC have relevance to the books you read in your ordinary habits (and how)?

What canon can often do is give you the cultural context in which a work was created. Knowing that Pound edited Eliot's "The Wasteland" and reading Pound you can see his influence on that work, and how it was shaped. You can also see Pound's influence on Yeats, helping to bring W.B.'s poetry in to the 20th century. Longer term, it's essential to have read something like King Lear to understanding Flannery O'Connor's Wise Blood. Lear influenced her writing, and Wise Blood is (in part) in dialogue with Shakespeare.

Can you enjoy a book that was influential, but has aged badly?

Sometimes. A work that is only of its time tends to reveal the biases and mechanics of its era and those cultural assumptions. The same way that looking at the advertising of a different era will tell you a great deal about the cultural presumptions of that time. My poetry professor said you could learn more from second-rate poetry because genuine works of genius defined their own rules. Whereas the second-tier stuff (by his estimation) exposed the gears and how the poetic effects were put together.

Does ignorance of a segment of the WC necessarily impair your ability to enjoy/benefit from another novel?

See my comments re: Lear/Wise Blood.

I can say that for me as someone who loves to read and write, reading 'canonical' work critically, knowing exactly what I did or didn't like and why, has improved how I read.

See, that makes sense to me. It's not personally where I live, as a reader or a writer - as I just said somewhere else, I probably ought to have a forehead tat or a teeshirt that says "Just tell me a fucking story!" - but that's a reason I can understand.

It's just that my reaction to fiction - I really ought to clarify, I am all about the crit when it comes to nonfiction - is completely visceral, and that's not something I ever want to change.

I love it, or loathe it. My stomach, where the Chinese say the soul lives, moves around because of it. I dream about it, or find myself wondering what the characters do ten years down the line. Things like that.

It's a mantra, of sorts.