Talk:Western canon

520:

unfamiliar with other European literature you just were not educated. In fact this tradition descends from the rationalist goals of the American Revolution, which was considered only a stage in the universal revolution. The American army scoured Europe, so to speak, for military men who would become international soldiers of fortune and our war memorials are full of their names: Kosciusko, Lafayette, etc etc. The first thing we said on being forced out of our isolationism was "Lafayette we are here." I'm familiar with the ignorant brand of "nationalism" of which you are speaking; it crops up on Knowledge all the time. These mainly European "nationalists" promulgate any distortion or lie in the interest of their "nation." I myself do not think they are allowed freedom of speech in their own societies, but then, those usually have an "ethnic" basis. I think the Great Books series is truly international; that is, western - they admittedly do not cover the great writings of India, China, Japan and so on - and whenever I see narrow nationalism raising its ethnic-cleansing head I think - oh no, foreign prejudice. Usually those in America who go for the ethnic cleansing idea are not educated enough to use Knowledge or be interested in Great Books or even know or care what the issues are. They just know they hate people who are different. The rationalist ideal failed them or else they failed it. They cannot avail themselves of our educational resources including Knowledge. So, I do not believe nationalism played any part in the selection of the western canon. If all the books were French or Greek or Albanian or Russian that is what would be in the great Books series.

564:

antiquity that is shared by all the modern European national languages. As we move into the Renaissance and into the development of modern languages and modern nation-states, we see that different countries do in fact develop different influences—certain texts become more important in one country than in another, and often these influences are based on language: the French canon will have more French authors, the Germans will have more German authors, etc. So yes, there should be some divergence regarding the line of influence in the past 400 years. Much of the issue is built on which works transcended national boundaries--Shakespeare, Molière, Goethe, Ibsen, Baudelaire and Flaubert have all become international figures. But otherwise, yes, I expect that a French version of "the" canon would use Hugo, Balzac, Zola, Maupassant, Stendahl, Sand and Dumas instead of Dickens, the Brontës, Mary Shelley, Scott, George Eliot, Trollope and Austen, and in place of Irving, Cooper, Hawthorne, Melville, Emerson and Thoreau. Not that any of these are not international, but that at a certain point in the conversation, each country begins to focus more on its own internal tradition. Think of it this way: the Eastern European tradition also builds on the Greco-Judeo-Christian tradition (not so much on Rome), but it's clear that their conversation developed in very different ways, and often with little or no interaction with the Western European tradition. So even the very notion of a Western Canon implies a certain parameter of lineage, one not shared with other cultures who come from the same starting points.

786:

catholic country, have a different concept of canon; but being raised in Europe gave me the same kind concept of canon(s) that any north american should have... There are as many canons as views on the world, but if one wants to leave a real global legacy, despite of one's opinion, there's an obligation to at least try to establish the ground basis for a western canon... Whatever that means... A final thought: what really means, nowadays, western canon? Are we really talking about a cultural and social canon that is specific to the west? By the way, what is really (the) west? For us, europeans, the west was, five houndred years ago, just sea, for americans, almost two houndred and thirty years ago, bare lands, for indians (the people of India) and chinese, for more than two thousand years, at least, just land filled with savages, for the persians, the same for almost the same amount of time, and we are back in europe again. We could do this exercise starting in any given point of the globe! Is it really that important to establish, nowadays, a western canon? Shouldn't there be several, real, canons? Shouldn't those canons be comprised? Is it so unreachable to obtain some sort of understanding about what culture, art and thinking, is really about?

3042:

canon" is a bit of a reach if there are no scholarly sources to back that particular case up. I'm not sure yet myself whether I think a merge is appropriate - but the main reason I would lean in that direction is that there's very little scholarly work on "canonical" literature before Harold Bloom's book, so if most of the discourse on "the canon" is a reaction to that book, it belongs in that article. Most of the sources I could find discussing a musical or artistic "canon" are about works that are not included (but the author supposes should be), but there's actually very little I can find that attempts to canonize any list of composers or painters or whatever... so it seems like "the canon" in those non-literary cases is more of a figure of speech to most of its users than a real list that can be defined.

1726:

uses as a picture, the work of Clara Schumann, who might at best make up a footnote of what is typically studied in most major western conservatories, while neglecting to even mention Mozart, Haydn, Wagner, etc... The debate section is the second section, before actually discussing individual aspects of the cannon, and takes up about as much space as all of the previous space as all of the previous material put together. I motion that most of this content be moved to a separate page, and a controversy section be added at the bottom of the article summarizing the material found in the "debate" section and linking to the more detailed page.

1799:. The opening sentence is the key to the article: "The Western canon is the body of books, music, and art that scholars generally accept as the most important and influential in shaping Western culture." What there is in the article on this subject is submerged under a mass of what could/ should/ would have been 'influential in shaping Western culture' (but was not). The essence of the subject, of consensus and of continuity, of agreement on the core common across all of western culture is lost in the shrubbery. We need to lose the shrubbery to be able to see the few trees and try to salvage the article. 2544:, various regions of Europe, and women writers (the Great Book lists tend to be largely dominated by male authors). This is my selection but it is baed on longer lists. Not a list of the 19 greatest writers ever, which would anyhow be equally subjective. Emily Dickinson is there, rather than say Melville or James, because she is a woman. But she is also a major poet; perhaps the first great woman poet after Sappho, and probably the first great woman poet in the English language. There is still a bias towards Europe rather than the World as a whole-and 2176:), Sigmund Freud's name is listed as "Some of the writers who are generally considered the most important in Western Literature". Obviously I agree that Freud was very influential, but should he be under this particular section? Freud's writings, to my knowledge, are exclusively treatises, or at leas the vast majority of them are. He's not exactly a writer of Literature, like Goethe or Joyce or even Camus (who still wrote fiction and plays, as well as treatises), but more a writer of Psychoanalysis -- he's more a Thinker than a writer. 2667:, please note that Harold Bloom includes the works of other cultures in his list (as do other Great Books lists). You might also check more carefully the sources that were provided. Yes, the authors were selected, but so is any list. The criteria is stated above and they were selected from good sources. I also think that the selection should be as short as possible-I aimed for a dozen but was defeated! What criteria would you prefer? What number of writers should be included? 84: 3003:. On the other side of the debate, there appears to be a broad assumption that originated with the creation of the article that "the West" is a coherent term or that it has the same meaning when applied to art, music, philosophy that it does when applied to literature. However, I can't find any reliable sources on what the philosophical or musical or visual canon allegedly is - so the inclusion of those topics in this article appears to constitute 74: 53: 179: 158: 2531:, it is too earlier to add Soyinka to the canon? Advice from someone who is more knowledgeable would be helpful. Perhaps only writers who died over a 100 years ago should be included? This applies to most authors listed here. But Marquez (d. 2014) is the only author from Latin America and Wole Soyinka (still living) the only African. Kafka died in 1924 and the rest over 100 years ago. 288: 267: 22: 1291:

this article, I ask for further discussion on the language used regarding both this anchor and the reoccurring theme of "dead white men" in the article's content. The subject of under-representation is an important one, but it could be more brief and less aggressive with regards to this article specifically, and perhaps more suited to a dedicated article of it's own.

189: 298: 2962: 765:

later the words "culture" or "civilization" were added, each with their own connotations: Western Culture had connotations of rural, Germanic, tribal, feudal - Western Civilization meant urban, French, urbane, bureaucratic, etc. The Greco-Roman / Judeo-Christian thing is just a modern attempt to define, retroactively, the historical antecedents.

2813:

state that Samuel Johnson, Emily Dickinson or Wordsworth hold a more important position in the Western Canon than Boccaccio, Camoes, Schiller, Hugo, Flaubert or Dostoevsky ? Though, I agree that the current list is visually too long. Maybe we should simply skip this list since it's not really enligthening and has no scientific value.

1892:

feminists to get more women included in the canon. Where I do agree is that some major figures both men and women are missing and that the article does stray of topic at times. I have edited out some of the over-emphasis on minor figures. Part of the problem maybe that the phrase "Western canon" can mean, both the

1673:

for the helpful comments. The section on "Black writers" follows on from what is suggested under "The expansion of the literary canon in the 20th century" section, as well as the various section which discuss women. You, however, make a good point, and perhaps, there can be some merging/re-organising

1492:

Thank you for your comments regarding this change. I also agree with your suggestion of new articles for relevant influences on the Western canon. Perhaps such pages would alleviate the sociological commentaries from this article. Whilst appreciated, I believe they would be better suited on dedicated

1380:

Regardless, further and more-specific citations to support the term could be researched, wherein the anchor could be reintroduced safely. In summary, more supporting research for the term is needed to reintroduce the anchor "dead white men", as the existing citations do not provide proof for it as an

826:

I would add that there is an entire section about the "expansion" of the Western cannon that would, at best, take up a footnote. Just because it happened recently doesn't make it important. I doubt in a hundred years people will remember the name of feminist authors or Marxist scholars. They are a

764:

the term "the West" in the sense of Western Civilization goes back to the 16th century, when mutually hostile Catholic and Protestant countries joined forced to fight off the Turks in Mediterranean sea battles. The underlying concept, of course, has its roots in the Christian church schism. Centuries

519:

As an English-speaking American I have to disagree with you there. The whole course of my education has been "western" in general; that is, the goal universally preached to me was to become cognizant of the world outside our narrow shores (narrow because so far apart as to be isolating). If you were

506:

I would think that despite the existence of undisputed masters of Western literature (Homeros, Shakespeare, Goethe, Dante, Cervantes, Camoes, Pessoa, etc.), there would be a lot of bias depending on the scholar's national background. For example, British or American experts would place more emphasis

3026:

The article has been much too long & too little referenced, with I think lots of student additions, but I very much doubt that a merge proposal would succeed - I would certainly oppose. I don't see the benefit of of many of your changes. For example removing dates from a list of figures doesn't

2812:

Half of the 26 names on Harold Bloom's list are Anglophone authors and he publicly recognised that it should not be regarded as an objective and comprehensive canon. It's of course a reliable source but his choices are undisputably biased and represent those of an English scholar. Who can seriously

2756:

No list will win unanimous approval, that's a fact. But any reduction of the list should be grounded on some reliable sources. The Norwegian Book Clubs list is made of 100 books. You can't just reduce this list to 20 books on personal preferences and pretend it's a source. By the way, this list, as

2694:

The editors of the Norwegian Book Clubs, with the Norwegian Nobel Institute, polled a panel of 100 authors from 54 countries on what they considered the “best and most central works in world literature.” Among the authors polled were Milan Kundera, Doris Lessing, Seamus Heaney, Salman Rushdie, Wole

1748:

Re philosophy and music, I suggest that you can easily remedy this. Otherwise a discussion of the lack of women in the canon, and the reasons for this, is especially relevant. In fact more attention might well be paid to the emergence of major women musicians, painters, sculptors, poets, novelists,

1566:

of the men in question. The words 'race' and 'white' are not even used in this referenced article. Whilst I respect the fact that the artists of the Western canon were white, needless inclusion of this assumption seems redundant in a section specifically on gender inequality. Surely race and gender

1424:

Yes, "dead white males" is more of a catchy, journalistic phrase. I'd prefer an article that gave equal weight to the positive changes that have taken place during recent history. That is focussing more on recent achievements by women, and on the influences of other culures on the West – especially

486:

The beginning of the debate section is terrible. That the western canon "do not represent the viewpoints of many others in contemporary societies around the world" is not a failing; hence the name western. A particular cultural viewpoint should not be criticised for its lack of universality; it was

1814:

You have a point: Clara Schuman is certainly not a major composer. However, the reasons for the absence of major women composer, until recently, has a place here. I think that the article should be revised rather than divided. Also more importantly Momteverdi, Dante, etc. should be added. I'll try

1294:

I believe some intervention may be warranted or some context needs to be introduced. If the term "dead white males" or equivalent is somehow academic terminology, I welcome the reintroduction of the anchor, but I would advise that it's nature may be more welcome to another article specifically for

785:

How come this page mentions a canon and afterwards (all along the text...) doesn't point or refer to a single, or several at least agreed by multinational - namely non-english speaking - representative parties, list(s) that can really constitute some sort of canon? Maybe I, a skeptical raised in a

2871:

My experience of articles like this is that if there is no list, people will very quickly add one, and then others keep adding to it, which is where we came in. Some sort of list is a reasonable expectation of the reader. A referenced list of up to 30, with a note sternly deprecating un-discussed

1725:

For example, there is a sub-section after every single section about women and feminism relating to the subject. The philosophy section has more discussing the status of females in Western philosophy than actually discussing the canon of Western philosophy itself. The music section discusses, and

1290:

Whilst I respect the fact that the majority of artists in the Western Canon are white men, I question the relevance and practice of including anchors for "Dead white men" to a section of a different name. Whilst the commentary on the under-representation of women and other races is appreciated in

563:

I think the OP is correct--and I've done the Great Books program. In colleges, we talk about the Western tradition as a line of texts going back to the Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian foundation of Western European culture. So in some respects, the Western Canon refers to a particular origin-point in

3041:

I think my main concern with tagging some of the information rather than removal is that a lot of the information is actually wholly incorrect or not at all verifiable - for example, the assumption that an author receiving a Nobel prize or a painter being in Vasari's book makes them "part of the

1833:

On further thought a new article may well be necessary: one that discusses the historical reasons for absence of women from the Western canon. Though the absence of key male figures is probably a more significant problem with this article. Also the article doesn't address the rise of major women

1647:

it is relevant to the discussion i.e. They were persecuted yet their art powered through. On the other hand, perhaps the persecution of black contributors to the Western Canon is great enough to entail a dedicated section. I'm no expert on the subject, so I cannot say. An unbias and academically

2383:

This list of writers is getting to be excessively long and it doesn't include the whole world. I'd suggest reducing it to, say, no more than a dozen and including all continents. The selection will obviously be, at times, subjective and there is a tendency to a bias toward certain languages, in

1891:

I don't know that I fully agree with the idea, that "a lot in the article that would be happier elsewhere". The question of how the canon was formed, along with the debate about what should be included, is relevant and serves to make the article more interesting. This includes the endeavours of

1642:

If you can find enough content for a dedicated section, by all means, so long as the section doesn't seem tokenistic or pandering. Perhaps it would be better to mention the contributions of black artists in the sections for which artistic medium is specific, and not in a dedicated black artists

1903:

On another point the word "western" is problematic: that is, the article does not consider sufficiently the influence of non-western culture on the so-called western cannon, starting with the ancient Greeks – the Bible is of course the prime example – or the addition of non-western writers,

2648:

Denying the very existence of a Western canonical culture on behalf of a political agenda supposed to promote other cultures is nonsensical and counterproductive. This article is about the Western Canon, not about an hypothetical World Canon, which could be the subject of another article.

1263:

The picture labelled 'Susanne Langer' is not of the philosopher Susanne Langer, and quite obviously so, since it was clearly taken after 1985, which is the date of her death as listed directly below the photo. The photograph actually depicts another Susanne Langer, a Danish politician.

886:

The Debate section only includes authors who argue the canon should be maintained. I agree with these authors mostly, but this makes for a very unbalanced "debate" section. Adding in Nussbaum or Cornel West would be good. It might also be relevant to note that the Canon-ists largely

2453:

societies, most notably the Bible, and is also valued by non-Western societies. The article states, for example, "Since the 1960s the Western literary canon has been expanded to include writers from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. This is reflected in the Nobel prizes awarded in

2011:

In practice I think the debate is very largely American. Even in Britain it is only followed with mild interest, partly because academic courses teaching the canon as a canon are rare to non-existent here. The same issues come up in British academia, but in a more fragmented way.

2772:

But isn't the current list of 50+authors based on personal choice? There are many lists of Great Books and choosing any one as a source is also a matter of personal choice. So what is to be done? The basic problem is a visual one; that is the current long list is indigestible.

2500:

Yes, this is the subject of the article, dated or not. Plus I think the current text overplays the demise of the dead white males. If writers from Africa, Oceania etc really were in the canon, by definition you wouldn't need to ask who they were! That's the point of a "canon".

507:

on Chaucer, Dickens, and so forth, while a Frenchman would go into Rabelais and Moliere, an Italian Boccaccio, Petrarch, etc. Especially since the 19th century, the ideal of a universal Western masterpiece is a little rare. Wouldn't there be some kind of dispute over this?

995:. This is reads more like a scholarly paper (or student essay) than an encyclopaedia article. I suggest that it be re-written to focus more on the poetry, and with just one section discussing the canon. Otherwise it should be part of a much wider discussion of the topic, 1567:

are two separate issues, and to include commentary on racial bias within a heading on feminism seems odd (imo). This blend of gender and racial bias is a common theme in articles such as this one, when I believe the two concepts are disparate and should be presented so.

2179:

So my question/concern is this: Since Freud only write psychoanalytic treatises (that's my understanding), should Freud be removed from that list? If he shouldn't, should we place other philosophical/psychoanalytical writers on that list, such as Plato and Nietzsche?

1361:

After reviewing the cited articles pertaining to the phrase, I still maintain that the terminology is not defined explicitly enough to warrant an anchor. Whilst the phrases "dead white males" and "The Oldest Dead White European Males" are similar, it still stands that

404:

It said 54 volumes under the caption on the picture. I changed it to 61 because the set pictured is the second edition, which has 60 numbered volumes, and an unnumbered one called "The Great Conversation" (which is one of the numbered volumes in the first edition).

3007:. Quite frankly, nobody in scholarly sources seems to have cared much at all about a "Western canon" as such until after Harold Bloom wrote a book about it, so if little enough of this article survives attempts at verification I will propose merging this article with 1314:

In addendum and after researching the previous article for which a merge was introduced, I believe the previous page and reference for 'Dead white men' is deprecated, and has no need to be anchored here excluding legacy referencing. If the anchor serves a purpose

2297: 540:

PS. There's an analogy with opera. The Italians just happened to write the lion's share of the world's best opera. The fact that they dominate compendia does not indicate Italian nationalism, even though Italians may justly be proud of Italian opera. Excelsior.

1366:

is maintained, and that said similar terminologies are not prevalent enough in academic or historic discourse. To introduce titles and headings (therein anchors) for colloquialisms and unestablished pseudo-academic terminologies is not in the nature of an

2999:. In general the largest part of the article appears to be unsourced complaints about the under-representation of underrepresented groups, combined with attempts to add works by those groups to this page in order to "canonize" them. This is, of course, 1338:

The removal of the "anchor" seems reasonable. I too don't like the phrase "dead white men", but the subject of the under-representation of women is very relevant to this article. Some academic context can be found in two quotations in the article.

848:

I sincerely doubt this. Marxism and Feminism have had a lasting effect on human culture and literature. I think Shakespeare himself is only a minor footnote in the history of theatre, and I would consider him of inferior importance to the likes of

450:

This section is ridden with weasel words. "It has been attacked"? By whom? Is their objection any more refined than "dead white European males"? Are these critics taken seriously by any scholar? This is a simplistic and misleading section.

2757:

any other one, cannot be considered as unbiased since half of the authors polled were Anglophone. Though, thegreatestbooks.org/ list is interesting since it's generated by an algorithm from 119 lists from a variety of reliable sources.

2695:

Soyinka, John Irving, Nadine Gordimer, and Carlos Fuentes. The list of 100 works appears alphabetically by author. Although the books were not ranked, the editors revealed that Don Quixote received 50% more votes than any other book."

1787:

splitting the article. Clara Schumann is in, but Monteverdi is not. "Dante, Homer and Virgil in Raphael's Parnassus fresco (1511), key figures in the Western canon" says the image caption, but they are not mentioned in the article...

1871:

I think that there is a lot in the article that would be happier elsewhere .. perhaps the article on western culture (rather than the canon)? but yes, an article specific to women would be a good and valuable alternative. Good plan.

1702: 2298:

http://jsp/Interstitial.jsp?seconds=5&date=1229507105000&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.derkanon.de%2Finterviews.html&target=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20081217094505%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.derkanon.de%2Finterviews.html

1319:

legacy referencing for a removed article and talk-page, it's reintroduction makes sense, but for now I would advise to avoid this anchor. It's previous context and purpose is both deprecated and documented on this talk-page.

657:

that only offers a single course). Yet there is absolutely no acknowledgement that there are any universities elsewhere in the world, English-speaking or otherwise, and no intimation that anyone outside the borders of the

2222:) 14:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC) The Western canon "includes works of fiction, non-fiction, poetry, drama, music, art, sculpture, and architecture generally perceived as being of major artistic merit" (from the lede), 1995:

The thinkers named in the 'Debate" section are all Americans. Does this mean that there is no debate (or less of a debate) in France, Russia, Germany, Italy, UK, etc.? Also is the main debate about literature?

2832:, that's a good idea: both lists in this section are in fact more or less covered by Bloom's "four ages" that follows. There is an obvious emphasis on white males but that is dealt with in the article. 739:

A quick note on the Annapolis St. John's--it's not a single course but an entire four-year curriculum. But yes, we do need to expand the list of western canon programs to cover schools outside the USA.

2721:

Unless someone can produce a good argument for listing almost 60 authors, I suggest that we return again to no more than twenty. This shorter list should only include writers whose works have become

834: 645:

In particular, the set of university reading lists is exclusively American, containing such internationally respected institutions as Colgate University and St John's College (not the one in

3045:

For the dates I removed, I saw those as redundant with the fact that each figure is already sorted under the century in which they lived - but I won't object if someone adds them back in.

805:

Please stop pushing this ridiculous anti cis-white-male agenda. This is racist, sexist and insulting. Otherwise I (and other ciswhitemales) have to take our annual donations elsewhere).

2970: 724:

I'm no expert on literary criticism, but isn't "the West" a concept that goes back to the Christian church schism? It seems to me at least that it's older than the 19th Century.

2427:- it would be wrong to include anyone else. It should in fact be possible to find a referenced list of a dozen or so. I'd suggest a hidden Pharoah's curse against additions. 435:

You are perplexed because you think that there is a logical reason for the attack. Instead, look for emotion, passion, and will as causes.This will terminate your perplexity.

1299:

that the phrases' context be explicitly detailed in the article's content. Does any alternative article exist to encompass the discussion for which this term is relevant?

642:

canon, but it might be at the very least polite to include some recognition that there are countries outside that great landmass of the western hemisphere, North America.

1050:

Coming new to this I think it is rather long and over-detailed given the overall shape of the article, even after recent expansions. I think it would be better to add to

1976:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not.

2384:

particular English. But some names are fairly obvious: Homer, Shakespeare, Dante, Tolstoy, (Joyce?), plus representatives from Asia, Latin America, Africa, and maybe

2672:

It has been argued that Dostoyevsky is a greater writer than Tolstoi, and maybe Molière should be included rather than Racine, but the authors/works listed are just

1674:

within the "expansion of the cannon" section, as well as more attention to major non-white artists, who have succeeded in the last hundred years, like, for example,

2325: 2321: 2307: 2114: 2110: 2096: 1562:: "...analyzes the embedded privilege in the predominantly white male...". The article for 'Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?' makes no comment on the 1559: 3140: 1927: 130: 2404:

and Jewish writers possibly? Are there any objections to this culling of the current list? The fact that any list is a purely representative and subjective

2082: 975:

Shouldn't this include some discussion of feminist revisions? (e.g. Aemilia Lanyer, Mary Wroth) I don't know the details, so I can't do it myself.--gecian

867:(1664) and its depiction of religious hypocrisy to be more relevant to the modern world, and far more entertaining, than anything Shakespeare has written. 140: 3150: 249: 239: 2277: 1530:

I've just done a little copy editing but could not find "sociological commentary" that wasn't useful in providing a context for this subject. Can you,

3165: 689:. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out 344: 1931: 354: 3155: 2072: 1097:, on further thought this section is on both Elizabethan and Metaphysical poetry. Perhaps it, along with material from the existing articles, on 1516:

You may be right, perhaps the sociological content could be reduced, and maybe the gender balance question could be treated with more subtlety.

827:

footnote in the history of the entire Western civilization. Shakespeare himself deserves more analysis than anything written in that section.

618:

I think the western canon goes far beyond church literature to encompass philosophical, literary, scientific, historical and theoretical texts.

3170: 1429:

in literature (don't forget the Bible!), architecture and painting. Eastern music has been a major influence on Western music since at least

725: 488: 106: 3135: 1271: 215: 1701:

I have restored the anchor. "Dead white males/men" is essentially a term from academe, which has been around for over 25 years now - try

654: 3145: 1686:. Furthermore, it would be good if the important influence of non-European culture on the West was generally highlighted a little more. 898: 812: 686: 663: 421:

couldn't be expected to write books. A slave could be whipped for learning the alphabet. Why would anyone "attack?" I am perplexed.

2954: 1733: 677:

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Knowledge is a

320: 2676:

of the greatest writers/works. Maybe Soyinka is too young but I was trying to include major from all continents. My main source was:

838: 3160: 3065:

Just wanted to say thank you, please continue. Some stuff might be more relevant to an important article we do not have yet, on the

2303:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2092:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

708: 458: 1549:

I think the edits you made were specifically on the issue I considered, and I thank you for these changes - I agree with them all.

2195: 97: 58: 2287: 938:

I have added some relevant material from the Canons of renaissance poetry article, prior to merging this article with this one.

481: 202: 163: 2237:

On further thought artistic merit seems to be a broader term that can include works that are not necessarily part of a canon.

3092:

I feel like video games as of now have been added to the canon, and I feel we should have a section in this article for them

2523:, e.g. I know that Wole Soyinka is a major African writer but is he the greatest non-white writer that Africa has produced?– 311: 272: 2083:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140812153638/https://www.twu.ca/academics/fhss/english/great-books-reading-list-09-2008.pdf

1616:

Hope that my addition isn't too sociological? The organizational structure of this article probably needs to be revised.

2368: 2157: 918: 700: 690: 33: 2278:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070927042834/http://doi.contentdirections.com/mr/greenwood.jsp?doi=10.1336%2F0313268762

1643:

section. Include black artists just as artists by merit in the other sections, and mention they are black in-passing

3000: 2476:

The term Western canon is dated, with the suggestion of a colonial superiority to other (more primitive) cultures.

1952: 1796: 1721:

This article is more focused on debating the status of women in the canon than explaining the Western canon itself.

372: 3011:- as it's not clear right now that enough verifiable information exists to support this article in its own right. 2792: 1942:

article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

2086: 2995:

I've been removing a large amount of content from this article as I do not believe any of it can be verified in

2324:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2113:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1191:

already cover this topic. I may not have followed strict merge protocol here, but everything has been recorded.

1106: 984: 2584: 2464:–literature, music, philosophy, and works of art–that is highly valued: works that have achieved the status of 1938:'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for 745: 729: 623: 575: 492: 2073:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140307082145/http://www.coastonline.org/mml/topic/topicsSearch_detail.php?id=312

1275: 2281: 1441:. There is also the growing achievement of non-white writers. See also the influence of Indian literature on 996: 902: 816: 2359: 2269: 2148: 2044: 1737: 667: 462: 2637: 2265: 1877: 1804: 1170: 1098: 1051: 214:

topics on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2492: 2343:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2331: 2132:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2120: 436: 422: 39: 2268:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2043:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 983:

This article is mis-named as it is just on English poetry. Furthermore, there is, oddly, no article on

762:

Enduring Western Civilization: The Construction of the Concept of Western Civilization and Its "Others"

2076: 1123:

Certainly that would be ideal, but quite a large job to do well. Don't know about the title though - "

3066: 2973:

until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

2191: 2187: 2183: 1729: 1267: 894: 888: 830: 808: 791: 787: 650: 546: 525: 454: 396:

Could someone explain why the mona lisa is even in the page at all? It isn't referenced in the text.

478: 21: 3093: 2388:. Also, say Ibsen for Scandanavia, and Goethe for the German language. Who for the French? Who for 1980: 1653: 1577: 1498: 1386: 1325: 1304: 1253: 1124: 741: 619: 565: 2460:

The lead needs to be revised, beginning with something like: <The Western canon is the body of

319:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

105:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3097: 3050: 3016: 2903: 2862: 2850: 2837: 2829: 2814: 2800: 2778: 2758: 2740: 2731: 2700: 2664: 2650: 2481: 2413: 2242: 2227: 2219: 2060: 2001: 1909: 1854: 1820: 1772: 1754: 1691: 1621: 1599: 1539: 1521: 1467: 1344: 1237: 1222: 1196: 1188: 1178: 1159: 1114: 1102: 1082: 1055: 1041: 1023: 1004: 992: 988: 948: 928: 872: 715: 211: 2328:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2117:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2052: 1969: 2344: 2133: 3075: 3032: 3008: 2877: 2683:"Top 100 Works in World Literature by Norwegian Book Clubs, with the Norwegian Nobel Institute 2506: 2432: 2066: 2017: 1873: 1835: 1800: 1710: 1679: 1136: 1131:

is very cursory indeed, and it could go there. All these articles need much better expansion.

1063: 770: 704: 696: 646: 599: 89: 2288:

https://web.archive.org/web/20151118102558/http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=167161

2978: 2818: 2762: 2654: 2589: 2520: 2489: 1965: 1214: 482:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/107629/ethnic_writers_and_the_western_literary.html

414: 194: 2351: 2140: 1900:

that are worth including in a complete history of western culture. and therefore studied.

3004: 2989: 2625: 1847: 757: 542: 521: 508: 2379:

Some of the writers who are generally considered the most important in Western literature

2795:, so I'd suggest that we use that, while emphasizeing that this is his personal choice. 2548:. There are 19 authors/works, in this prelimenary list (I need to check the chronology): 2966: 2545: 2540:

The following is a possible list. It includes writers/works from all continents except

2401: 2310:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2211: 2099:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1977: 1957: 1843: 1839: 1683: 1670: 1649: 1573: 1531: 1494: 1382: 1321: 1300: 1151: 1128: 303: 73: 52: 2350:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2139:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1695: 1543: 1525: 1308: 1295:

the sociological implications of the Western Canon and not this article specifically,

3129: 3116: 3108: 3062: 3046: 3012: 2899: 2858: 2833: 2796: 2774: 2736: 2696: 2524: 2477: 2469: 2424: 2409: 2389: 2291: 2261: 2238: 2223: 2215: 2036: 1997: 1935: 1920: 1905: 1850: 1816: 1792: 1768: 1750: 1687: 1675: 1617: 1595: 1591: 1535: 1517: 1463: 1340: 1233: 1218: 1192: 1174: 1155: 1110: 1078: 1037: 1019: 1015: 1000: 944: 924: 868: 712: 608: 1407:

I do not understand your comment, because I fully agree with you about the "Anchor".

3071: 3028: 2873: 2854: 2649:

Furthermore, the list provided is purely arbitrary and is not based on any source.

2633: 2528: 2502: 2461: 2446: 2428: 2013: 1706: 1132: 1094: 1059: 850: 766: 2996: 2974: 2601: 2568: 2450: 2393: 2317: 2106: 1442: 1434: 1426: 178: 157: 1930:

to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for

3027:

seem helpful to the reader. You should probably tag more, and just cut less.

2593: 2316:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2105:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2087:

https://www.twu.ca/academics/fhss/english/great-books-reading-list-09-2008.pdf

1842:, in more recent years. Some canonical women writers are also absent, such as 1150:

If I can find the time I will revise, including moving material – probably to

858: 293: 184: 102: 79: 417:" (the new expression) wrote books because they were the educated people. A 2898:

There is a similar list under "Bloom's four ages", and this includes works.

2605: 2574: 1438: 662:

would ever read this article, let alone the great works of western culture.

603:, although I'm not sure how that fits into a general article on literature. 207: 2408:

should be made clear. Who might represent Asia, Africa, and Latin America?

2282:

http://doi.contentdirections.com/mr/greenwood.jsp?doi=10.1336%2F0313268762

386: 287: 266: 188: 3112: 1572:

But the copy edits you made were sound. Thank you for this contribution.

1381:

established academic or common terminology. Again, comments appreciated.

863: 659: 604: 2961: 2942: 2931: 1014:

On further thought it would probably be best to merge this article with

2722: 2617: 2541: 2465: 2385: 1430: 854: 597:

In ecclesiastical literature, the Western canon is widely known as the

316: 3120: 3101: 3081: 3054: 3036: 3020: 2982: 2907: 2881: 2866: 2841: 2822: 2804: 2782: 2766: 2744: 2704: 2658: 2510: 2495: 2436: 2417: 2373: 2246: 2231: 2199: 2162: 2021: 2005: 1985: 1913: 1881: 1858: 1824: 1808: 1776: 1758: 1741: 1714: 1657: 1625: 1603: 1581: 1502: 1471: 1390: 1348: 1329: 1286:

Please advise on the academic context behind the term 'dead white men'

1279: 1241: 1226: 1200: 1182: 1163: 1140: 1118: 1086: 1067: 1045: 1027: 1008: 952: 932: 906: 876: 842: 820: 795: 774: 749: 733: 718: 671: 627: 612: 582: 550: 529: 511: 496: 477:

i found links that talk some more about the sides of the controversy.

466: 439: 425: 2613: 2609: 2579: 2563: 1904:

composers, etc. to the canon, especially in the last hundred years.

1767:

Problem: Who defines "major" figures here? We need sources for that.

1232:

As there have been no objections the merge will be completed shortly.

2971:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Non-canonical

2735:

was published in 1926). It will have to include mainly white males.

943:

There have been no objections so I will complete the merge shortly.

2077:

http://www.coastonline.org/mml/topic/topicsSearch_detail.php?id=312

1648:

established opinion is needed on this subject (An expert), I feel.

1036:

As there has been no objections I will complete the merge shortly.

315:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of 2726: 2629: 2621: 2597: 2559: 2397: 418: 479:

http://www.goacom.org/overseas-digest/Discourse/literarycanon.htm

681:, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the 678: 2173: 1127:" normally stops early into James' reign in Eng. Lit. studies. 1554:

I would ask the relevance of including race under the heading

15: 2053:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mario%2Bvargas%2Bllosa

2725:–say works published no later than the early 20th century– ( 1749:

philosophers and dramatists, etc. in the twentieth century.

2067:

http://kevinscharp.com/Kevin%20Scharp%20-%20%20Diagrams.htm

1594:, so I'll try and add something on Afro-American writers. 685:

link at the top. The Knowledge community encourages you to

2272:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2047:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1934:

in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of

923:

the merging of that article be with this one. Comments?

383:

This link to Harold Blooms canon list seems to be dead,

2423:

No, cull away. A reminder: the title of the article is

2040: 921: 2965:

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect

2472:, and are also appreciated throughout the world: --> 1534:, give examples that you think are not appropriate? 206:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2320:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2174:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Western_canon#Classic_book

2109:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 371:Obsolete discussions from 2003 and before archived 2468:. These works do not necessarily originate in the 2292:http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=167161 2519:I asked for advice because I'm not an expert in 1217:is already here, so that article is redundant. 3107:and you have a reliable source for that? (Ref 2857:, and other editors, should anything be done? 2449:, however, the canon also includes works from 2306:This message was posted before February 2018. 2095:This message was posted before February 2018. 1462:Hope you are able to make some improvements. 8: 1970:"Artist Biography: Barbara Hepworth 1903-75" 1928:Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting 1169:I have begun by moving some material to the 1105:, could form the basis for a new article on 1560:Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? 2181: 1727: 1558:in the statement following a citation for 1265: 892: 828: 806: 261: 152: 47: 2260:I have just modified 3 external links on 2035:I have just modified 3 external links on 1896:writers, painters, musicians, etc., and 1815:and do something in the next few weeks. 2924: 1590:Clearly the article needs a section on 387:http://www.literarycritic.com/bloom.htm 263: 154: 49: 19: 963:Merge: The canon of renaissance poetry 3072:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1433:, and then there is the influence of 967:Page moved here following the merge. 917:I have suggested on the Talk page of 835:2601:640:C101:1DFC:1BC:B23F:5FA8:528E 7: 1187:I have revised this page also - the 309:This article is within the scope of 200:This article is within the scope of 95:This article is within the scope of 3141:High-importance Literature articles 701:New contributors are always welcome 38:It is of interest to the following 2872:additions, is the best way to go. 2172:Under the section "Classic Book" ( 1252:Article merged: See old talk-page 709:many reasons why you might want to 14: 3151:Mid-importance education articles 2264:. Please take a moment to review 2039:. Please take a moment to review 1791:The article should be split into 699:to try out your editing skills. 638:I know this article is about the 3166:High-importance history articles 2960: 296: 286: 265: 187: 177: 156: 115:Knowledge:WikiProject Literature 82: 72: 51: 20: 2969:. The discussion will occur at 2296:Corrected formatting/usage for 2051:Corrected formatting/usage for 1556:Feminism and the artistic canon 1213:Most of what is in the article 913:The canon of renaissance poetry 349:This article has been rated as 244:This article has been rated as 224:Knowledge:WikiProject Education 135:This article has been rated as 118:Template:WikiProject Literature 3156:WikiProject Education articles 1058:) with a short summary here. 227:Template:WikiProject Education 1: 3055:21:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC) 3037:11:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC) 3021:06:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC) 2247:20:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC) 2232:14:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC) 2210:Would it make sense to merge 2200:22:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC) 1986:22:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC) 1914:18:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC) 1882:14:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC) 1859:12:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC) 1825:11:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC) 1809:11:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC) 1797:Critique of the Western canon 1777:19:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC) 1759:17:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC) 1742:21:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC) 1285: 991:, though there is one on the 907:02:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC) 877:14:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC) 843:21:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC) 750:01:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC) 719:15:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 672:14:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 653:, but some two-bit outfit in 551:15:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 530:14:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 329:Knowledge:WikiProject History 323:and see a list of open tasks. 218:and see a list of open tasks. 109:and see a list of open tasks. 3171:WikiProject History articles 2983:01:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC) 2374:16:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC) 919:Canons of renaissance poetry 821:08:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC) 734:15:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC) 613:20:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC) 467:07:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 426:11:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 332:Template:WikiProject History 3136:C-Class Literature articles 3121:21:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC) 3102:19:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC) 2997:reliable, secondary sources 2953:"Literary canon" listed at 1715:02:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC) 1696:18:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC) 1658:17:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC) 1626:15:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC) 1604:15:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC) 1582:13:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC) 1544:12:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC) 1526:12:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC) 1503:19:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC) 1472:17:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC) 1391:16:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC) 1349:11:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC) 1330:23:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC) 1309:23:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC) 634:Ludicrous US bias, as usual 628:06:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC) 512:07:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 440:03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 3187: 3146:C-Class education articles 3082:09:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC) 2908:19:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC) 2882:15:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC) 2867:13:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC) 2842:15:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC) 2823:13:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC) 2805:12:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC) 2793:26 names on his basic list 2783:10:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC) 2767:01:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC) 2745:16:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC) 2705:00:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC) 2659:22:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 2511:21:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC) 2496:18:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC) 2437:14:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC) 2418:12:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC) 2337:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2257:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2126:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2032:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1972:Retrieved 31 January 2014. 1953:Glossary of literary terms 1364:no established terminology 1242:11:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC) 1227:11:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1201:14:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC) 1183:14:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC) 1164:15:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 1141:13:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 1119:10:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 1107:British renaissance poetry 1087:22:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC) 1068:20:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC) 1028:19:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC) 1009:18:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC) 985:English renaissance poetry 933:19:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC) 796:07:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC) 583:17:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC) 497:10:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 355:project's importance scale 250:project's importance scale 141:project's importance scale 2163:20:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC) 1280:21:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC) 1046:13:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 953:13:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 775:20:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC) 703:. You don't even need to 687:be bold in updating pages 400:Number of books in GBotWW 348: 281: 243: 172: 134: 67: 46: 3161:C-Class history articles 2955:Redirects for discussion 2585:A Hundred and One Nights 2022:14:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 2006:20:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC) 1926:I check pages listed in 3069:(non-Western, global). 3001:not how wikipedia works 2253:External links modified 2028:External links modified 1991:Debate outside America? 1946:Reference named "gale": 1919:Orphaned references in 997:The Canon in literature 487:never attempting such. 2638:Gabriel Garcia Marquez 1171:Elizabethan literature 1099:Elizabethan literature 1052:Elizabethan literature 98:WikiProject Literature 28:This article is rated 882:Debate Section biased 203:WikiProject Education 2318:regular verification 2107:regular verification 1248:Dead White men merge 707:(although there are 2988:Purging article of 2308:After February 2018 2214:with this article? 2097:After February 2018 1958:"Glossary of Terms" 1932:orphaned references 1834:composers, such as 1254:talk:Dead white men 1125:English Renaissance 1054:(in the absence of 971:Feminist revisions? 781:A Canon is a Canon! 312:WikiProject History 121:Literature articles 2943:The Greatest Books 2932:The Greatest Books 2362:InternetArchiveBot 2313:InternetArchiveBot 2151:InternetArchiveBot 2102:InternetArchiveBot 1189:Metaphysical poets 1103:Metaphysical poets 1056:Elizabethan poetry 993:Metaphysical poets 989:Elizabethan poetry 692:how to edit a page 473:more on the debate 230:education articles 34:content assessment 3009:The Western Canon 2791:Harold Bloom has 2338: 2202: 2186:comment added by 2127: 1836:Sofia Gubaidulina 1744: 1732:comment added by 1703:this gbook search 1680:Sir V. S. Naipaul 1282: 1270:comment added by 909: 897:comment added by 845: 833:comment added by 823: 811:comment added by 801:"Dead White Males 649:, nor the one in 600:Patrologia Latina 593:Patrologia Latina 469: 457:comment added by 369: 368: 365: 364: 361: 360: 260: 259: 256: 255: 212:education-related 151: 150: 147: 146: 90:Literature portal 3178: 3078: 2964: 2945: 2940: 2934: 2929: 2590:Murasaki Shikibu 2521:World literature 2372: 2363: 2336: 2335: 2314: 2161: 2152: 2125: 2124: 2103: 2064: 1983: 1968:: Gale, Matthew 1966:Barbara Hepworth 1961: 1215:Dead white males 580: 573: 570: 452: 423:GhostofSuperslum 415:Dead white males 337: 336: 335:history articles 333: 330: 327: 306: 301: 300: 299: 290: 283: 282: 277: 269: 262: 232: 231: 228: 225: 222: 197: 195:Education portal 192: 191: 181: 174: 173: 168: 160: 153: 123: 122: 119: 116: 113: 92: 87: 86: 85: 76: 69: 68: 63: 55: 48: 31: 25: 24: 16: 3186: 3185: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3126: 3125: 3090: 3080: 3076: 3067:universal canon 2993: 2958: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2941: 2937: 2930: 2926: 2626:Emily Dickenson 2381: 2366: 2361: 2329: 2322:have permission 2312: 2270:this simple FaQ 2255: 2208: 2170: 2155: 2150: 2118: 2111:have permission 2101: 2058: 2045:this simple FaQ 2030: 1993: 1981: 1960:. Gale Cengage. 1956: 1924: 1848:Emily Dickenson 1723: 1288: 1261: 1250: 1211: 981: 973: 965: 915: 889:lost the debate 884: 803: 783: 758:Silvia Federici 726:155.101.189.124 636: 595: 576: 571: 566: 504: 489:125.238.245.135 475: 411: 402: 394: 381: 351:High-importance 334: 331: 328: 325: 324: 302: 297: 295: 276:High‑importance 275: 229: 226: 223: 220: 219: 193: 186: 166: 137:High-importance 120: 117: 114: 111: 110: 88: 83: 81: 62:High‑importance 61: 32:on Knowledge's 29: 12: 11: 5: 3184: 3182: 3174: 3173: 3168: 3163: 3158: 3153: 3148: 3143: 3138: 3128: 3127: 3124: 3123: 3089: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3070: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3043: 2992: 2986: 2967:Literary canon 2957: 2951: 2947: 2946: 2935: 2923: 2922: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2845: 2844: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2786: 2785: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2678: 2677: 2669: 2668: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2546:dead white men 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2514: 2513: 2498: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2440: 2439: 2402:Eastern Europe 2380: 2377: 2356: 2355: 2348: 2301: 2300: 2294: 2286:Added archive 2284: 2276:Added archive 2254: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2212:Artistic merit 2207: 2206:Artistic merit 2204: 2169: 2166: 2145: 2144: 2137: 2090: 2089: 2081:Added archive 2079: 2071:Added archive 2069: 2055: 2029: 2026: 2025: 2024: 1992: 1989: 1974: 1973: 1962: 1923: 1917: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1844:Marianne Moore 1840:Kaija Saariaho 1828: 1827: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1762: 1761: 1722: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1684:Salmon Rushdie 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1585: 1584: 1569: 1568: 1551: 1550: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1333: 1332: 1287: 1284: 1272:99.244.175.151 1260: 1259:Susanne Langer 1257: 1249: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1210: 1209:Merge proposal 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1152:English poetry 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1129:English poetry 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1031: 1030: 980: 977: 972: 969: 964: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 914: 911: 883: 880: 802: 799: 782: 779: 778: 777: 753: 752: 742:Aristophanes68 722: 721: 683:edit this page 635: 632: 631: 630: 620:Aristophanes68 594: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 556: 555: 554: 553: 535: 534: 533: 532: 503: 500: 474: 471: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 410: 407: 401: 398: 393: 390: 380: 377: 367: 366: 363: 362: 359: 358: 347: 341: 340: 338: 321:the discussion 308: 307: 304:History portal 291: 279: 278: 270: 258: 257: 254: 253: 246:Mid-importance 242: 236: 235: 233: 216:the discussion 199: 198: 182: 170: 169: 167:Mid‑importance 161: 149: 148: 145: 144: 133: 127: 126: 124: 107:the discussion 94: 93: 77: 65: 64: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3183: 3172: 3169: 3167: 3164: 3162: 3159: 3157: 3154: 3152: 3149: 3147: 3144: 3142: 3139: 3137: 3134: 3133: 3131: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3073: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3044: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2991: 2987: 2985: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2963: 2956: 2952: 2944: 2939: 2936: 2933: 2928: 2925: 2921: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2733: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2670: 2666: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2586: 2581: 2577: 2576: 2571: 2570: 2565: 2561: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2530: 2527:?–and maybe, 2526: 2525:Chinua Achebe 2522: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2499: 2497: 2494: 2491: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2483: 2479: 2474: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2425:Western canon 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2400:to represent 2399: 2395: 2391: 2390:North America 2387: 2378: 2376: 2375: 2370: 2365: 2364: 2353: 2349: 2346: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2333: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2309: 2304: 2299: 2295: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2262:Western canon 2258: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2205: 2203: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2177: 2175: 2168:Sigmund Freud 2167: 2165: 2164: 2159: 2154: 2153: 2142: 2138: 2135: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2122: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2098: 2093: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2068: 2062: 2056: 2054: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2037:Western canon 2033: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1990: 1988: 1987: 1984: 1979: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1954: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1943: 1941: 1937: 1936:Western canon 1933: 1929: 1922: 1921:Western canon 1918: 1916: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1901: 1899: 1895: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1793:Western canon 1789: 1786: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1676:Derek Walcott 1672: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1646: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1592:Black writers 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1570: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1552: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1528: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1367:encyclopedia. 1365: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1318: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1292: 1283: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1258: 1256: 1255: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1208: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1016:Western canon 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 986: 978: 976: 970: 968: 962: 954: 950: 946: 942: 941: 940: 939: 937: 936: 935: 934: 930: 926: 922: 920: 912: 910: 908: 904: 900: 899:75.161.103.26 896: 890: 881: 879: 878: 874: 870: 866: 865: 861:. I consider 860: 856: 852: 846: 844: 840: 836: 832: 824: 822: 818: 814: 813:92.200.79.163 810: 800: 798: 797: 793: 789: 780: 776: 772: 768: 763: 760:'s 1995 book 759: 756:According to 755: 754: 751: 747: 743: 738: 737: 736: 735: 731: 727: 720: 717: 714: 710: 706: 702: 698: 695:, or use the 694: 693: 688: 684: 680: 676: 675: 674: 673: 669: 665: 664:87.114.101.69 661: 656: 652: 648: 643: 641: 633: 629: 625: 621: 617: 616: 615: 614: 610: 606: 602: 601: 592: 584: 581: 579: 574: 569: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 552: 548: 544: 539: 538: 537: 536: 531: 527: 523: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 510: 502:National bias 501: 499: 498: 494: 490: 484: 483: 480: 472: 470: 468: 464: 460: 456: 441: 438: 437:72.73.205.104 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 424: 420: 416: 408: 406: 399: 397: 391: 389: 388: 384: 378: 376: 374: 356: 352: 346: 343: 342: 339: 322: 318: 314: 313: 305: 294: 292: 289: 285: 284: 280: 274: 271: 268: 264: 251: 247: 241: 238: 237: 234: 217: 213: 209: 205: 204: 196: 190: 185: 183: 180: 176: 175: 171: 165: 162: 159: 155: 142: 138: 132: 129: 128: 125: 108: 104: 100: 99: 91: 80: 78: 75: 71: 70: 66: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 27: 23: 18: 17: 3091: 3088:Video Games? 2994: 2959: 2938: 2927: 2919: 2811: 2755: 2730: 2673: 2647: 2634:Wole Soyinka 2583: 2573: 2567: 2475: 2462:high culture 2459: 2454:literature". 2405: 2382: 2360: 2357: 2332:source check 2311: 2305: 2302: 2259: 2256: 2209: 2182:— Preceding 2178: 2171: 2149: 2146: 2121:source check 2100: 2094: 2091: 2034: 2031: 1994: 1975: 1945: 1944: 1939: 1925: 1902: 1897: 1893: 1890: 1874:Scarabocchio 1801:Scarabocchio 1790: 1784: 1783: 1734:71.81.250.87 1728:— Preceding 1724: 1668: 1644: 1563: 1555: 1529: 1515: 1363: 1316: 1296: 1293: 1289: 1266:— Preceding 1262: 1251: 1212: 1149: 1076: 1018:. Comments? 982: 974: 966: 916: 893:— Preceding 885: 862: 851:Aristophanes 847: 829:— Preceding 825: 807:— Preceding 804: 784: 761: 723: 691: 682: 644: 639: 637: 598: 596: 577: 568:Aristophanes 567: 505: 485: 476: 449: 412: 403: 395: 385: 382: 370: 350: 310: 245: 201: 136: 96: 40:WikiProjects 3047:- car chasm 3013:- car chasm 2602:Shakespeare 2569:Mahabharata 2490:Paul August 2451:non-Western 2394:Henry James 1443:Leo Tolstoi 1435:African art 1427:Middle East 459:76.216.19.9 453:—Preceding 409:Singularity 3130:Categories 3077:reply here 2920:References 2732:The Castle 2594:Cao Xueqin 2369:Report bug 2188:Dr. Johnny 2158:Report bug 1795:and, say, 979:Page title 788:Zejoao2000 509:Brutannica 112:Literature 103:Literature 59:Literature 2606:Cervantes 2575:Gilgamesh 2406:selection 2352:this tool 2345:this tool 2141:this tool 2134:this tool 2061:dead link 1978:AnomieBOT 1671:HJBristow 1650:HJBristow 1574:HJBristow 1532:HJBristow 1495:HJBristow 1439:modernism 1383:HJBristow 1322:HJBristow 1301:HJBristow 1077:I agree. 655:Annapolis 651:Cambridge 442:Benighted 392:Mona Lisa 379:Dead Link 221:Education 208:education 164:Education 3094:Alena 33 3063:Carchasm 3005:WP:SYNTH 2990:WP:SYNTH 2900:Rwood128 2859:Rwood128 2834:Rwood128 2797:Rwood128 2775:Rwood128 2737:Rwood128 2723:classics 2697:Rwood128 2478:Rwood128 2466:classics 2410:Rwood128 2358:Cheers.— 2239:Rwood128 2224:Rwood128 2216:Rwood128 2196:contribs 2184:unsigned 2147:Cheers.— 1998:Rwood128 1906:Rwood128 1894:greatest 1851:Rwood128 1817:Rwood128 1769:Dimadick 1751:Rwood128 1730:unsigned 1688:Rwood128 1618:Rwood128 1596:Rwood128 1536:Rwood128 1518:Rwood128 1464:Rwood128 1341:Rwood128 1268:unsigned 1234:Rwood128 1219:Rwood128 1193:Rwood128 1175:Rwood128 1156:Rwood128 1111:Rwood128 1079:Rwood128 1038:Rwood128 1020:Rwood128 1001:Rwood128 945:Rwood128 925:Rwood128 895:unsigned 869:Dimadick 864:Tartuffe 831:unsigned 809:unsigned 713:goethean 660:lower 48 455:unsigned 3029:Johnbod 2874:Johnbod 2855:Johnbod 2618:Tolstoy 2542:Oceania 2529:Johnbod 2503:Johnbod 2447:Johnbod 2445:Thanks 2429:Johnbod 2396:maybe? 2386:Oceania 2266:my edit 2065:tag to 2041:my edit 2014:Johnbod 1785:Support 1707:Johnbod 1669:Thanks 1493:pages. 1431:Debussy 1133:Johnbod 1095:Johnbod 1060:Johnbod 859:Molière 855:Plautus 767:Zyxwv99 697:sandbox 640:Western 353:on the 326:History 317:History 273:History 248:on the 139:on the 30:C-class 3113:𝕁𝕄𝔽 3109:WP:NOR 2975:SWinxy 2851:Vidcaw 2830:Vidcaw 2815:Vidcaw 2759:Vidcaw 2665:Vidcaw 2651:Vidcaw 2614:Goethe 2610:Racine 2580:Vergil 2564:Sappho 2057:Added 1317:beyond 1173:page. 857:, and 705:log in 647:Oxford 578:(talk) 36:scale. 2828:Yes, 2727:Kafka 2630:Kafka 2622:Ibsen 2598:Dante 2560:Homer 2398:Kafka 1964:From 1951:From 987:, or 711:). — 541:Ciao. 419:negro 3117:talk 3098:talk 3051:talk 3033:talk 3017:talk 2979:talk 2904:talk 2878:talk 2863:talk 2838:talk 2819:talk 2801:talk 2779:talk 2763:talk 2741:talk 2701:talk 2674:some 2655:talk 2507:talk 2488:So? 2482:talk 2470:West 2433:talk 2414:talk 2243:talk 2228:talk 2220:talk 2192:talk 2018:talk 2002:talk 1940:this 1910:talk 1878:talk 1855:talk 1846:and 1838:and 1821:talk 1805:talk 1773:talk 1755:talk 1738:talk 1711:talk 1692:talk 1682:and 1654:talk 1622:talk 1600:talk 1578:talk 1564:race 1540:talk 1522:talk 1499:talk 1468:talk 1425:the 1387:talk 1345:talk 1326:talk 1305:talk 1276:talk 1238:talk 1223:talk 1197:talk 1179:talk 1160:talk 1137:talk 1115:talk 1101:and 1083:talk 1064:talk 1042:talk 1024:talk 1005:talk 949:talk 929:talk 903:talk 873:talk 839:talk 817:talk 792:talk 771:talk 746:talk 730:talk 679:wiki 668:talk 624:talk 609:talk 547:talk 543:Dave 526:talk 522:Dave 493:talk 463:talk 373:here 345:High 210:and 131:High 3111:). 2729:'s 2473:. 2326:RfC 2290:to 2280:to 2115:RfC 2085:to 2075:to 1898:all 1437:on 1154:. 891:. 605:ADM 240:Mid 3132:: 3119:) 3100:) 3053:) 3035:) 3019:) 2981:) 2906:) 2880:) 2865:) 2853:, 2840:) 2821:) 2803:) 2781:) 2765:) 2743:) 2703:) 2657:) 2636:, 2632:, 2628:, 2624:, 2620:, 2616:, 2612:, 2608:, 2604:, 2600:, 2596:, 2592:, 2588:, 2582:, 2578:, 2572:, 2566:, 2562:, 2509:) 2484:) 2435:) 2416:) 2392:?– 2339:. 2334:}} 2330:{{ 2245:) 2230:) 2198:) 2194:• 2128:. 2123:}} 2119:{{ 2063:}} 2059:{{ 2020:) 2004:) 1955:: 1912:) 1880:) 1857:) 1823:) 1807:) 1775:) 1757:) 1740:) 1713:) 1705:. 1694:) 1678:, 1656:) 1645:if 1624:) 1602:) 1580:) 1542:) 1524:) 1501:) 1470:) 1389:) 1347:) 1328:) 1307:) 1297:or 1278:) 1240:) 1225:) 1199:) 1181:) 1162:) 1139:) 1117:) 1109:? 1085:) 1066:) 1044:) 1026:) 1007:) 999:. 951:) 931:) 905:) 875:) 853:, 841:) 819:) 794:) 773:) 748:) 732:) 670:) 626:) 611:) 572:68 549:) 528:) 495:) 465:) 375:. 3115:( 3096:( 3074:| 3061:@ 3049:( 3031:( 3015:( 2977:( 2902:( 2876:( 2861:( 2836:( 2817:( 2799:( 2777:( 2761:( 2739:( 2699:( 2653:( 2640:. 2505:( 2493:☎ 2480:( 2431:( 2412:( 2371:) 2367:( 2354:. 2347:. 2241:( 2226:( 2218:( 2190:( 2160:) 2156:( 2143:. 2136:. 2016:( 2000:( 1982:⚡ 1908:( 1876:( 1853:( 1819:( 1803:( 1771:( 1753:( 1736:( 1709:( 1690:( 1652:( 1620:( 1598:( 1576:( 1538:( 1520:( 1497:( 1466:( 1445:! 1385:( 1343:( 1324:( 1303:( 1274:( 1236:( 1221:( 1195:( 1177:( 1158:( 1135:( 1113:( 1081:( 1062:( 1040:( 1022:( 1003:( 947:( 927:( 901:( 871:( 837:( 815:( 790:( 769:( 744:( 728:( 716:ॐ 666:( 622:( 607:( 545:( 524:( 491:( 461:( 413:" 357:. 252:. 143:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index