The Literary Canon.

In simple terms the Literary canon is the books and poems and all literature that we read in school and study and analyze. Many controversies over the literary canon have persisted over the decades over who should be in it and how should students and teachers read it, who is able to be in the literary canon and who gets to pick which classics are able to be in it. Here is a article I found that goes in more depth about it and women and other minority groups being incorporated to it.  

The literary canon of a country or a group of people is comprised of a body of works that are highly valued by scholars and others because of their aesthetic value and because they embody the cultural and political values of that society. Works belonging to the canon become institutionalized over time by consistently being taught in the schools as the core curriculum for literary study. As critic Herbert Lindenberger, among others, has pointed out, the process of canon formation and evolution is influenced by cultural and historical change, and the English and American canons have regularly undergone revision throughout the centuries. In the twentieth century, for example, the English and American canons in the United States were challenged in the 1920s by Jewish intellectuals like Lionel Trilling and Oscar Handlin who became important Ivy League scholars, and again in the 1960s, when sweeping cultural change brought the concerns of women, minorities, gays, and Marxist liberals to the forefront of literary study.

Most recently, a reexamination of the American and English literary canons took place in the 1980s. Within academe, the European white male author model had already been thoroughly criticized during the 1960s and 1970s. Many works by women, gays, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and non-Europeans had made their way into college literature courses. However, the question of their permanent status as canonical works still remained to be decided: should they become a required and consistent part of the college curriculum, informed by the literary canon? This question has been hotly debated both by academics and non-academics since the early 1980s. 

While the issue of which works belong in the English and American literary canon has not been permanently settled, a spectrum of opinion has gradually emerged. Some conservative scholars insist that the classics of English and American literature taught since the beginning of the nineteenth century must remain at the core of the canon since they represent the notion of tradition. These critics would exclude noncanonical works on the basis that they are marginal and do not represent the best literary achievement of the culture. On the other end of the spectrum are radical scholars who would almost completely replace the classics of the canon with noncanonical and documentary works. They argue, for example, that the diary of a female garment worker from the early part of the twentieth century is more pertinent to today's students of English than is the poetry of T. S. Eliot. The majority of scholars fall somewhere in the middle, however, in that they advocate keeping a modest core of classics in the canon but supplementing it with the best of literature by women and minorities. With the aim of carrying on and refining this debate, critics have written much about inclusion criteria for both American and English works. Scholars like Lillian S. Robinson, Nina Baym, and Anette Kolodny have injected questions of gender and empowerment into the canon debate. There has also been discussion about the political aspects of the canon, with critics such as Patrick Williams and Karen Lawrence focusing on postcolonial aspects of minority literature.

Source: http://www.enotes.com/revising-literary-canon-criticism/revising-literary-canon

Looking at Hamlet through the Lens of Gender Criticism

To illustrate what I have been trying to discuss in several articles, I am going to look at texts who have previously looked at Hamlet by Shakespeare through the lens of feminist criticism. I tried to pick a text that many have read or at least could summarize in order to looks at the text more in depth. Elaine Showalter who I have mentioned a lot in my blog is a very popular feminist writer. One of her most popular works is “Representing Ophelia: Women, Madness, and the Responsibilities of Feminist Criticism “and in this text she looks at the role that Ophelia plays in the play Hamlet.

Elaine Showalter defines Ophelia in many typical ways in her essay "Representing Ophelia: Women, Madness, and the Responsibilities of Feminist Criticism." She discusses her significance in reference to how she reveals Hamlet's characteristics. Showalter touches upon the idea that Ophelia's character is one that is symbolic of the psychiatric theories of Freud. Showalter also attributes the characterization of Ophelia to not only the audience, but also to the actress that plays the part. Never does she suggest that Ophelia could be just that, "Ophelia." Her entire article is devoted to individual interpretation of the play in its entirety, focusing primarily on Ophelia. Showalter presents her own ideas by bringing together the ideas of many others such as Jacques Lacan, Susan Mountfort, Ellen Terry, and more. Showalter provides suffice evidence in addressing each argument, but in doing so, she never takes into account the possibilities of Shakespeare's reasoning.

                    Clearly, there is not one true answer to her madness, just as in real madness. It takes a building up of bottled feelings and emotions to drive a person insane. As stated earlier, many say that Ophelia's madness comes almost entirely from her "female love-melancholy." Although this could be part of the reason for her madness, the main reason for her madness seems to be a direct result of her father's murder. Not only would this be a valid conclusion after reading the play, but also because of the things that she says when she is in her mad state of mind. Before it can be decided that her madness is the result of her father's murder, the relationship that she had with her father must also be examined. Ophelia and her father have a very close relationship, one that involves much respect. This may not be characteristic of only Ophelia and her father but of the majority of families in this time period. This close relationship is also exemplified in the relationship that Hamlet has with his father and mother, a Rather than argue for her feelings, out of respect for her father's wishes, she says "I shall obey, my lord" (1.4.136). In doing this, the relationship that Ophelia has with her father, Polonius, is clearly more important to her than her feelings for Hamlet. If this is fact, then the feelings for her father are much stronger than her feelings for Hamlet. This can only reinforce the idea that her madness can be attributed to her father's murder. Not only does Ophelia have a very close relationship with her father, but also her relationship with Hamlet is one that involves fear due to his crazed actions. The way Hamlet handles her in the scene where she evokes his madness while Claudius and Polonius secretly watch, causes Ophelia to fear him. This is probably a side of him that she has never seen before. It frightens her because the words coming from his mouth are like words from a madman. Hamlet begins by telling her "I / did love you once," but then turns right around and almost spitefully tells her "I love'ngs and in answer, Ophelia sings to her this song: "'He is dead and gone, lady, He is dead and gone, At his head a grass-green turf, At his heels a stone." (4.5.29-32) Her singing is continuous and it suggests that it is not only his murder that has made her mad, but also the fact that he did not receive the proper burial that he deserved. He was not honored in his death as he, or any other dead person, should have been. Ophelia continues to sing these crazy songs when Laertes comes and sees her. He too is flabbergasted by the fact that his father never received an honorable burial, but when he sees Ophelia he becomes even more disturbed. She sings these mad songs to Laertes about her father's death. Ophelia goes on to sing "'And will 'a not come again? And will 'a not come again? No, no, he is dead, Go to thy death-bed, He never will come again." (4.5.187-191). Ophelia then continues her songs until she finally leaves. This scene is enough to suggest that Ophelia is not driven mad because of a love-melanchol

            Elaine Showalter does present a valid argument that many would accept as fact. Although she manages to do so in a very professional and unbiased manner, she seems somehow to ignore the fact that Shakespeare could have simply meant for Ophelia to be a young girl who was driven mad at the death of her father. In all seriousness, the combination of the two dramatic situations going on in her life are probably what led her to her madness, but one more so than the other. The fact is that without the interpretations and ideas of others, the play seems to ask to be read in a way that would point to her father's death as the main reason for her madness. Outside criticisms are what sway an audience into believing that there is more to it than what is written. This could be very true, but more often than not, the author's work serves as evidence enough for a valid interpretation of a work. Maybe Shakespeare meant to say exactly what he said.

Through this essay we can see Elaine Showalters views of Ophelia in Hamlet and how a text can be analyzed through the lens of feminist criticism.

Sources: http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=4486