tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621995982503387078.post2725550977333982845..comments2024-03-25T12:06:32.583-05:00Comments on THE ARCHETYPAL ARCHIVE: CONTENTIONS OVER CONTENTGene Phillipshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11495562795211277146noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621995982503387078.post-44703463874521216772008-08-14T10:18:00.000-05:002008-08-14T10:18:00.000-05:00"Outer" here would be with respect to what is view..."Outer" here would be with respect to what is viewed as being inside or outside the literary canon.<BR/><BR/>Some critics have been known to picture the canon as an embattled fort, surrounded by "ignorant armies" or barbarians at the gates, or the like.<BR/><BR/>I like the image of the canon as a house built atop a foundation. The house has a certain separateness from the foundation but isn't possible without it.<BR/><BR/>The idea that trash literature serves only the "inner" worlds (which is how I translate your observation) is not as true as it might seem. It's more a difference of degree than of kind.Gene Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11495562795211277146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621995982503387078.post-66904390094096425102008-08-13T19:58:00.000-05:002008-08-13T19:58:00.000-05:00So if TWO GENTLEMEN is bad, yet is still part of l...<EM>So if TWO GENTLEMEN is bad, yet is still part of literature, can not GREEN LANTERN not be bad, and still be part of literature? It would seem so, though I am sure that even if defenders of literary standards agree to this logic, they will still banish the Lantern and all of his kindred to the outer darkness of "trash literature."</EM><BR/><BR/>Why isn't "trash literature" still literature? Based on its ubiquity, it's more "inner" than "outer."Charles R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09017194183349815246noreply@blogger.com