By Felo ai
Prompt: Is it appropriate to assess a poet who subscribes to alternative literature canon tendencies with canon metrics?
Response: Assessing a poet who subscribes to alternative literary canon tendencies with canon metrics is fundamentally problematic, as it applies a measuring rod designed for one set of values to work created under a different set of principles.
The term "canon" itself derives from a Greek root meaning "measuring rod," and canonical texts represent the standard against which individual works are measured
When a poet explicitly rejects that standard, using it as the benchmark for evaluation creates a category error.
The Nature of Canon Metrics:
The literary canon functions as a reference set for what is officially recognized as literature, and it is subsequently used in the evaluation of other works.
This means canon metrics are not neutral tools; they encode specific assumptions about what constitutes literary quality, significance, and value.
These assumptions have historically prioritized works by established authors from the Western literary tradition, such as Shakespeare, Tolstoy, and Dante.
Critics of the traditional canon argue that it is "tired, dusty, over-analysed, dull, and mostly white and male".
Alternative canon tendencies often emerge precisely as a response to these limitations, seeking to elevate marginalized voices, experimental forms, or traditions that the mainstream canon has excluded or undervalued.
The Mismatch of Evaluation Frameworks:
When a poet subscribes to alternative canon tendencies, they are typically operating within a different evaluative framework. For example, a poet drawing on Sappho's lyric tradition of homoerotic imagery and personal emotion is working within a lineage that values intimacy and subjective experience, not the epic, "macho masculine war central" tradition of Homer.
Applying Homeric or Shakespearean metrics to such work would miss its central virtues.
This mismatch is not merely a matter of taste but of methodology. The canon is "an echo chamber of influence" that "promotes or erases different voices within a society".
A poet who deliberately positions themselves outside that echo chamber is making a claim that the chamber's standards are inadequate. Judging their work by those standards would be akin to measuring a poem's success by its adherence to a tradition the poet has explicitly rejected.
The Case for Contextual Assessment:
A more appropriate approach would
assess the poet's work within its own chosen tradition and stated intentions. This does not mean abandoning all standards of quality, but rather recognizing that different literary traditions may have different criteria for excellence.
The canon itself is "subject to continual reassessment and revision, reflecting changes in cultural priorities and collective tastes", which suggests that evaluation frameworks are not fixed but evolve alongside the literature they assess.
Modern poets who engage with the canon often do so through dialogue, subversion, or reworking—as seen in Patience Agbabi's retelling of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales or Terrance Hayes's experimentation with Shakespearean sonnets.
These poets are not simply rejecting the canon but actively negotiating with it, and their work is best understood through that negotiation rather than through static canonical metrics.
Conclusion:
It is not appropriate to assess a poet who subscribes to alternative canon tendencies with canon metrics. The canon is a specific evaluative framework with particular historical and cultural biases, and applying it to work created in opposition to or outside of that framework produces distorted judgments.
A fair assessment requires understanding the poet's own tradition, intentions, and the alternative standards they embrace. While the canon can serve as one point of reference, it should not be the sole or primary metric for evaluating poets who have deliberately positioned themselves against it.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at
http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at
http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CALfyqEFWP20m6zxKw3%3DS5Tn8%3DivZwJyFesJT6SDTfSueO%3D4yTA%40mail.gmail.com.
