Ole Willie is gonna be offended.

Given Ole Willie's times and main audience, he'll just be grateful if you don't fling rotten produce at him.

You do every difficult thing that comes your way, or do you pick and choose?

It's funny, but if I've heard about how great something is from people I respect, generally I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

And then? If you still have a low opinion of Moby Dick after reading the whole thing, as I did?

I didn't bitch about Moby Dick without having read it. That *would* be patently ridiculous. But after having seen/heard/read/experienced any kind of art, can't you *then* have an opinion on it?

You love Moby Dick. I despise it. Is either one of us "right"? Am *I* the weak one because it was too "hard" to like Moby Dick? I think emphatically not.

I'll admit to being a bit knee-jerky about some of the Great 19th Century (and some early 20th) Authors. It was the big area of my department, and I just couldn't bring myself to like large swathes of it, even 'though I really liked and respected a lot of the professors. I think there's still a part of me going, "But . . . but . . . but . . . I don't see it. Why is this wonderful? Why?" Back then I'd run back to the dark corners with the Yeats prof and the guy who had a thing for the Pre-Raphaelite poet/painter movement, and the Communist prof. who taught 18th century lit. We'd huddle over bad coffee and discuss Marlowe conspiracy theories with the Renaissance lit. profs. Good times.

Quentin Compson is my homeboy.

I can't decide if you scare me deeply, or you're the coolest human alive.

discuss Marlow conspiracy theories with the Renaissance lit. profs

Sounds lovely.

Anyway, canon exists because literate people generally agree that those particular works represent the best of literature.

I disagree. And the further back you're going, the more I disagree. A certain set of people "generally agree" about those works, but not everyone. Not all English speakers. Not all college-educated English speakers. The "canon" is like "history" -- it is developed by the people in charge. It is not objective fact.

The canon is big. Very big. Nobody, even Harold Bloom, loves all of it.

Many of us, me included, grew up with Great Books, which you had to read, and Good Books, which you wanted to read.

Then we became free agents and started to read anything we wanted. And we discovered that some of the Great Books were actually Good Books, and we said "Wow! Look at that Dickens! What a page-turner!" And some of us said "Good heavens, James Joyce speaks to my innter soul!" And others of us said "what IS with this Madame Bovary person, and can I have five minutes with her and a tire iron?"

That's not anti-intellectual. That's exploring the canon, and it's a good thing.

I can't imagine that I'll ever read Pilgrim's Progress again. It's part of the Canon. It doesn't speak to my condition. I'm off to find something that does. That hardly makes me a non-reader or a non-intellectual.

But it's not an intellectual failure to read all of Moby Dick and not like it. It's personal taste.

I read MD, and I didn't like it. The digressions annoyed me no end -- which is also my problem with Dostoevsky.

I may try reading it again to see if there's a fine novella lurking in there. I suspect there is.

And the further back you're going, the more I disagree.

Right, and on two axes. #1, the older stuff is, the more stuff has been lost. The Iliad might be the pissant twiddlings of an adolescent twerp next to Amazing Poem of Epicness And Beauty, but the Iliad is extant and APEB is not.

#2, canon does change. A lot. Writers slide into the oblivion of history's dustbin, and then, sometiems championed by a fellow writer (even possibly a critic!), leap back to life when the socio-cultural circumstances permit.

There's an excellent essay called "A Voice From The Attic" by Robertson Davies in the collection of the same name. He talks about the literary canon as a toybox. Authors are played with awhile, put into the toybox, dragged out of the toybox, and put in again. That doesn't change the quality of the work. Jane Austen is still Jane Austen whether she's a forgotten girly novelist or the Great Author Of Our Times. Waverly used to be an obligatory novel; now it's read only by people who are writing papers on Scott.

What matters is whether Kipling speaks to my condition (he does, he does, how he does), not whether he's currently considered Great.