Untitled - Sexey's School Moodle

publication was regulated by the dominant ideology of a literary élite who responded
radically to what they perceived as the commercialization of literature and what they
considered the vulgarization of taste in an expanding reading public. The economic
parable of cultural capital and exchange articulated in the first chapter lends itself
particularly well to the ensuing discussion of The Monk’s critical reception and its initial
exclusion from canonical consideration. In a contemporary assessment of canons, John
Guillory argues that processes of canonization do not relate solely to arguments of
aesthetic and representative value. Rather, a more comprehensive and accurate picture of
these processes can be obtained by examining the specific historical contexts in which
they are embedded (“Canon” 234-238). Consequently, a Canon is not a set and/or
definite entity; it is a dynamic, “cultural capital” as Guillory points out, and its stocks rise
or fall with changes in the specific cultural contexts under which they are produced, read,
interpreted, and distributed. Hence, canon formation involves several factors, including
the appraisal of critics and writers—the value (or “currency” to adopt Guillory’s
terminology)—attributed to the work within the general community, and the inclusion of
the author and/or his or her work in various institutional contexts.
Similarly, in determining how literary texts are given eminence, Stephen
Greenblatt emphasizes the prominent role played by cultural transactions within specific
contexts throughout history (Shakespearean Negotiations 4). Works of art are given the
ability to “confer pleasure or excite interest or generate anxiety” (5) through an intricate
web of cultural “negotiations” and “exchanges” (6) according to Greenblatt. The diverse
circumstances through which literature is produced, received and circulated within
specific contexts are greatly influenced by the dominant ideologies of institutions. In the
94