Untitled - Sexey's School Moodle

addressees” (Norton 1551). Nevertheless, the case of The Monk illustrates a number of
important points regarding the discursive exchanges between transgression and the
critical processes of canon-formation. First, it is a telling preview of what was described
in the first chapter as the “culture wars” that occurred in the late twentieth century,
describing the conflict between high and low forms of cultural production as they
struggle for critical recognition and acceptance. More specifically, the pattern of
reception of the Gothic exemplifies how forms of “low”—popular and/or minority
literatures—are typically marginalized by institutional authorities for they do not
correspond to their criteria of taste and value. Second, it also illustrates how works
considered to be transgressive, such as The Monk, are processed through the mechanisms
of critical reception and how their perceived threat is diffused through the very same
processes—criticism and literary reviews—that discredit their value as cultural capital.
Third, the discussion regarding The Monk effectively demonstrates how a literary text can
be perceived to be transgressive for various reasons and how it can simultaneously
belong to the three categories of transgression outlined in Chapter Two. Fourth, Lewis’
novel exemplifies rather well the patterns of reception of a transgressive work and its
impact on audiences, producing shock and arousing controversy, before consequently
being perceived as subversive. And fifth, by breaking the taboos of incest and murder,
The Monk aptly reveals the subversive potential of transgression as it challenges artistic
conventions as well as social, cultural, and political hegemonies.
132
In the following centuries, subsequent processes of canonization and cultural
negotiations would ultimately trigger a major adjustment in the novel’s exchange value as
cultural capital. It is precisely with regard to the changing perceptions of a work by