Is the Library of America Irrelevant?

Newsweek's rather harsh article:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236005

What do you think?

Obviously the Newsweek "critic" either had an agenda, or needed to file copy. Perhaps not all of Cheever is great, but even Homer sometimes nodded. I also think one of the best things about LOA is that they will publish the works of "second-tier" authors like Dawn Powell or Charles Brockden Brown who do not deserve to be out-of-print.

I will start worrying about the LOA when it starts publishing anthologies of Newsweek "critical" reviews.

Yes, I agree also, I didn't like his article - it was too biased without showing any form of impartiality of both sides of the story. it was just whine, whine, whine.

A ridiculous piece. Jones doesn't bother to actually educate anyone one (least of all himself) about how titles get selected. The ridiculous "jumping the shark" metaphor--a silly phrase borrowed from the entertainment industry--hardly enlightens us. Max Rudin is on record in various interviews discussing the broad agenda that makes room for the likes of Shirley Jackson. The idea that Jones can publish this under Newsweek's banner without any kind of research at all is appalling. It comes off as content-free sophomoric snarkiness.

I whole-heartedly second bsc20's response. The goal of LOA has never been to "enshrine the American canon." There would be little point. If an author is deemed canonical, then surely his or her works are already in print and readily available. The way to enshrine a canon is to make lists. On the contrary, the great value of LOA is keeping in print worthy authors (canonical or not) whose works otherwise might fall into obscurity. I, for one, have always rejoiced in LOA's inclusiveness. As has often been said, the touchstone of LOA is "great writing," which is assuredly not identical with or limited to great (or canonical) literature.

Euphorb nails my thoughts regarding LOA "enshrining the American canon". I have much less interest in reading the canonical authors as I do in discovering otherwise overlooked authors who are being "rescued" by LOA. If the more canonical authors make it into my subscription, great. But, I am prefer the hidden finds...

Of course we still have such luminaries as Ayn Rand, Stephen King and eventually, Dan Brown to look forward to.

I'd have to say I agree with the article. The Library of America states that its mission is to publish "America's best and most significant writing" and that sounds like the desire to establish the canon or at least to remind us of what it is. It sounds like Matthew Arnold's line from Culture and Anarchy that culture consists of the best that has been thought and said in the world.

There are all sorts of issues when you talk about the canon, who should be included, but there's usually a consensus of some kind among professors and editors and literary critics. Or at least there used to be. That may be one of the problems. I take into account that there will always be a little bit of disagreement. But the Library has crossed line several times into noncanonical territory, for example with its inclusion of a 20th Century Journalism series.

Another problem is trying to make money off a subscription service that has a finite canon to work with, so the temptation is to include more and more volumes that the company thinks will sell, despite being noncanonical. I don't think Lovecraft, for example, belongs in the same category as Robert Penn Warren, our first Poet Laureate, who hasn't even been included yet. I have to assume that criteria other than quality are at work, despite what the Library says in its mission statement.

The Library should make up its mind: Does it want to uncover neglected writers? To sell books? Or to stick to the canon?

I doubt LOA would ever say that it meant to stick to the canon-- if so, the inclusion of William Dean Howells in the first batch runs contrary to that intent. That is not to say Howells was never "canonical", but he certainly isn't any more. And for those who think that the "canon" is a set thing, keep in mind many many authors whom used to be canonical have fallen off and been replaced with various new authors for the sake of diversity. At this point, I would rather include everyone rather than getting rid of the "old white guys" for the purposes of drafting top 100 lists, PhD comprehensives, etc...

I would say "America's best and most significant writing" are two different things that may, or may not, overlap. In that sense, I am not bothered by the notion of Ayn Rand being included given Atlas Shrugged often being cited as the second most influential book of all time, second to the Bible. It is, in that sense, significant, though it may not be the "best" writing. I think that this is what explains the inclusion of Lovecraft and exclusion of Robert Penn Warren. Lovecraft is widely cited as a huge influence for most modern horror writing; he is "significant". Not to say Warren isn't, but it isn't as if they kept Warren out to put Lovecraft in.

Keep in mind, no one requires a subscriber to purchase any volume that they do not wish. You can select to receive or not receive a volume of Lovecraft well in advanced of receiving it. This allows LOA to include a wide variety of authors and for subscribers to narrow their books only to those desired. The mere presence of Lovecraft in the LOA shouldn't bother anyone, it isn't as if they are being required to purchase the volume.

I think everybody is forgetting the fact that in order to use "canonical" writers you need to acquire the rights first. Hemingway's heirs are still not allowing LOA to publish his works. I would subscribe today if LOA had Hemingway.

So if you have a situation where a company like LOA wants to publish literature of important and significant writers and they have difficulties in acquiring or being giving permission to publish that will undeniably undermine the whole system and the mission statement they have will endure criticism.

Well said, ptdixon. I simply cannot agree that a mission to publish America's "best and most significant writing" is the same thing as establishing, or presenting, a canon. The journalism anthologies, the slave narratives, the speeches volumes, the debates on the Constitution, the letters of many of the authors, and much more all clearly include "significant writing" that deserves contin uation in print, but I doubt many would consider those items as belonging to a canon.

Actually, William Dean Howells is still part of the canon. I read him both as an undergraduate and a graduate student.

I don't consider "diversity" a serious criterion for entry into the canon. The canon is a representation of literary excellence, not a political rainbow coalition. The mission statement: "The Library of America helps to preserve our nation's literary heritage…" That would be American literary heritage. You don't find Latino authors, for example, because Latinos were not part of our founding or our intellectual origins and heritage.

A good place to look for canonical authors are the anthologies themselves. The American Literature anthologies by Robert Penn Warren, R.W.B. Lewis, and Cleanth Brooks are a good place to look for canonical authors, though, similar to my admission about disagreements above, the three authors had disagreements about whom to include. They did manage to include some Native American poems and blues songs. Generally, however, there was a consensus among authors, editors, and critics at that time regarding the canon.

If the Library of America makes no claims to be canonical, then the argument is moot. But it seems to me even to name your organization "The Library of America" is to make some claim for a canon of excellence and exclusion. And its mission statement is revealing:

"The Library of America helps to preserve our nation's literary heritage by publishing, and keeping in print, authoritative editions of America's best and most significant writing. An independent nonprofit organization, it was founded in 1979 with seed money from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Ford Foundation."

I cannot consider Shirley Jackson among our best or most significant. She is known only for one mediocre short story. Lovecraft had a certain fringe popularity, but I don't consider him our best or significant either.

The Newsweek piece does seem to epitomize lazy criticism/journalism: accuse someone of not doing something that they never intended to do in the first place. And, after complaining about the LOA not living up to the critic's own canonical limitations, the writer ends by saying that the whole canon thing is out of style, anyway.

I think the author of the piece was bemoaning the fact that the idea of a canon is no longer as popular as it once was.

Deniro-
Interesting, i did both an Undergrad and a Masters (no PhD) and his name had never even come up. I suppose it depends on the department/school. Or, it may depend on when one went through... Maybe this is again a question of what sort of canon even exists? My book/course selection may be entirely different from yours, does that mean each university has its own underlying canon? Obviously it isn't quite that random, but at times it feels like the canonical exposure at each university largely depends on the habits of the particular professors at a university...

And while I agree that "diversity" shouldn't be a criterion, in the two universities where I attended it most clearly was. I suppose the willingness to include the "rainbow coalition" approach is largely due to the embrace of relativism when determining "literary excellence." If we can't say what is truly excellent, then we have no real method for including or excluding works other than personal preference or trendiness.

In my grad school days, I was much more attracted to the canon than I currently am. The notion of a list of "excellence" is certainly a worthy pursuit, but I don't feel the need to exclude other authors from LOA based on my preference, or of the editors of the Anthologies. I can certainly respect that some have no interest in Lovecraft, but I think that it is a worthy pursue for LOA to collect those writers with cultural impact even if their literary merits may be more sketchy. For example, I would say that Harriot Beecher Stowe falls under that category-- her writing isn't to the level of other authors, but Uncle Tom's Cabin certainly had impact. It seems to me that LOA would be missing an important work if she were not included, though I don't think her place ought to be reserved off of her literary merit.

I guess my feeling is that it need not be a this or that proposition; it seems perfectly reasonable to include both types of works so that a single series of books can include as wide a variety of works as possible.

Yes, I went to schools which were not yet so influenced by critical relativism that they played fast and loose with the canon.

Ultimately it gets to be an argument with no end in sight.

By the way, I'm not really a big fan of the volumes themselves. I don't like the idea of several novels in one book. And I don't think the quality of the LOA books is anything special. I prefer the Everyman series if I had to choose.

Deniro-
an end in sight only matters if we are in the game of converting each other, which I don't believe is really the point of the conversation for either of us...

I do actually like the multi-novel approach, if for no other reason than it saves shelf space. I haven't tried the Everyman Series yet, though I have been considering them for some of the non-American works (Brit lit, ancient works, etc). Are they physically similar to LOA (good binding, bible paper etc)?

Concerning the article, I concur with the sentiment, but disagree with it's target, namely the LOA. I'd much rather have an inclusive LOA than an exclusive one. Some of the newer selections give me cause for concern. But not to the level of outrage. Besides, aren't we about 50 years past the canon debate? I think the only worthy purpose it now serves is for late-night bandying among over-imbibed zealots; even then it seems pointless.

Wouldn't the LOA need to include "bad" writers though? McCarthy and Pynchon will surely become part of the American canon, if they are not already. Their prose (and plot lines), taken on their own, can be vague, disorganized, and even messy. Are there writers that fill that gap, say between a Melville and Pynchon? Are those writers important?

This discussion got me thinking about another "library": the Boni & Liveright/Random House Modern Library (1917-1970). It had, I think, a more fluid definition of "important literature" than does the LOA (also allowing for works from other countries). The idea, I guess, was to make fine works of literature cheaply available. However, the Random House definition of such literature was somewhat fluid, as they would frequently drop titles from their list, and they had no compunction about using current authors (such as Faulkner). And, while there are many ML books that nobody reads anymore, I've never read any of them that would be considered substandard (perhaps just irrelevant).

Canons are important to two people:those who don't know how to think for themselves, and those who don't want anyone to think in ways other than the authorized ways of thinking, hence the canon. The canon amounts to an authoritative prescription of what to read.

Academia went through an upheaval several years ago about "The Canon". Exclusivity and Frightened, Dead, Dying, Old, White, Men lost. Get over it.

LOA, last I looked, was a subscription service. If you feel they are going too far afield then cancel your subscription and move on.

I think that there is a major difference in the posters' interpretation of the LOA mission statement: I interpret their statement to mean that they will publish work that is both excellent AND significant. It is very possible that the most significant (and by that I definitely do NOT mean most popular) works may be lacking in literary "excellence," a slippery criteria as standards of "excellence" are not absolute and can change over time (look at the change in critical estimation of Moby Dick, to take the most obvious example).

Significance can mean many things, and I think that from the beginning, the LOA has done a fine job of highlighting those works that have had significant impact on the development of American Literature as a genre. One of the earliest inclusions for the LOA was Charles Brockden Brown. whose Gothic-style novels were significant as the work of America's first professional novelists, and who opened a vein later mined by writers as diverse as Lovecraft, Poe, Flannery O'Connor and Stephen King. The novels of James Fenimore Cooper are both significant and canonical, and were other early LOA editions, but their literary excellence escapes me. I'd like someone try to convince me as historical sagas of the frontier they are superior to the best of Larry McMurtry and A. B. Guthrie; but I still think they deserve to be included simply because they were (are) important and because despite the outlandish dialogue and often cardboard characters, they can be quite engaging.

I agree with posters who have dismissed the whole concept of canon (those who think it is worthwhile need to read some of the decisions the Académie Française for rejecting as unworthy of canonical status such literary figures as Jean Jacques Rousseau, Jean-Paul Sartre, Honoré de Balzac, René Descartes, Gustave Flaubert, Marcel Proust, Jules Verne, and Émile Zola). From the time, many years ago, when I was in graduate school, I have seen the critical assessments of many writers--canonical and otherwise--fall and rise. Shortly after Hemingway's suicide, Dwight MacDonald, a canonical critic, wrote an article claiming that the only first-rate stuff Hemingway wrote were some of the short stories and just portions of the novels. There followed a period of Hemingway-bashing, fueled in part by the Feminist movement, that culminated in an article in Esquire titled "Papa and the Parasites" which discussed the phenomena of how the most-honored American writer of the 20th century had been marginalized by those who tried to dismiss his achievements by applying criteria largely inapposite to his actual output. I think the demand among LOA subscribers for Hemingway shows that this movement was transitory, and that people are getting back to looking at the works themselves--and their influence.

(I also agree with the poster who felt Howells had fallen from canonical grace--as a grad student, we only read one Howells work--and no, it wasn't The Rise of Silas Lapham, it was A Modern Instance. Although I think these works, and even more so A Hazard of New Fortunes, belong in the LOA, I think Howells' influence was greater as editor of the Atlantic Monthly and Harper's, than as a novelist, and that his novels are pretty slow going. I'd be surprised if many read them for pleasure these days.)

Misapplying a definition of 'canon' to the Loa mission statement is very similar to the inaccurate defining of the word 'heritage'. Our country's heritage includes both the distant and recent past and every point in between and does not exclude any person of any culture or race. I'm not surprised that some people will believe an article based more on sarcasm, bad humor and cheap shots than one founded upon well-considered arguments.

Canons don't shut down discussion; if anything, they call attention to the art form under discussion. The Modern Library list was pretty poor, but it did get people talking about serious literature for a time. Debating the merits of Shirley Jackson (I think she belongs) or of Lovecraft (sorry folks, he's just not very good) is part of the fun.

As an undergrad in English we had Howells' Rise of Silas Lapham and A Hazard of New Fortunes, the latter of which really should have been in the LOA by now. I know a person who is actively tracking down all of Howells' fiction. He just loves the guy. I wonder whether the essays are readable these days.

Yes discussion is good. But canons aren't necessary to spark discussion or stir debate (I like what you are doing with Shirley Jackson and HP though; I'm no big fan of either but I'd think the stronger, perhaps not sounder, argument could be made for the reverse). It probably does help focus people when weighing the merits of a particular author, especially if someone is biased toward a writer for person reasons. But the notion of a western canon as sound footing for an education is no longer applicable. Then what does the canon become? A collectively played fantasy football team of sorts. And, those who take the canon too seriously (we've all met a few) are tedious, usually apoplectic individuals. So there's reason enough to be vehemently anti-canon!

I didn't mention in my earlier post, but I think that although Ms. Jackson may be BEST known for "The Lottery," and I puzzle over the description of it as a "mediocre" story, I think she is also somewhat well-known, and well-regarded, as the author of The Haunting of Hill House, the iconic modern version of the haunted house story.

Literature like music like anything else is hip one day and dead the next and tastemakers (professors, critics) like herpes come and go. But unlike a pair of platform shoes (which I noticed have re-resurrected having resurrected in the 70s from the 40s...) significant and/or good writing can get lost never to found again. The fact that LOA provides us the opportunity to hear these voices is a priviledge and who cares what some dude whoneverwrotenothin' got to say about the choices they make.

>26 Texaco:

"Critics, like herpes, come and go" That deserves to be on a T-shirt!

(Texaco, platform shoes may get resurrected, but don't hold your breath waiting for the return of the leisure suit and Nehru jacket.)

I'll try to overlook the insults being tossed my way.

I don't happen to think the idea of a canon is outdated. Let's keep the cheap shots out, ok?

Deniro-
I am curious, what is the real advantage of the LOA as canon? What of that advantage is lost by including some of the "second tier' writers in LOA? I guess my wonder is what problems arise if LOA includes Lovecraft/Hammet/etc alongside Melville/Twain/Etc?

My comment, which I understand deniro cannot see because he has my posts blocked, was not a cheap shot, it was a statement of fact.

ETA: I think canons are useful for certain things: what books are relevant to the study of certain topics, which books over time are the tried and true on the subject they cover. But when it comes to fiction, a canon is just a cheap way to channel peoples thinking in a certain direction.

>28 barney67:
Physician, heal thyself....

I don't think anyone was deliberately trying to insult you--just dismiss the importance of the concept of a "canon," but I think perhaps a little more sensitivity is called for when you justify your position. The statement "You don't find Latino authors, for example, because Latinos were not part of our founding or our intellectual origins and heritage," which is in itself debatable, might be offensive to a great many.

>30 geneg:
I think you've hit on the usefulness of a canon--it can be a starting point; the problem is when people try to make it the end point.

And here's a cheap shot with a more distant target: Who is Newsweek to proclaim something irrelevant?

When bored or in doubt, create a nonsensical controversy and poke the anthill. It's always fun to watch the ants run wildly about debating nonsense.

More than anything, I was actually really surprised that Newsweek even had an article about the LOA. It is a somewhat "niche" product, I would say that it falls under the all press is good press cliche...

ptdixon, when you said it was a "niche" product, at first I thought you meant Newsweek, because a couple of weeks ago, the executive editor (I think) of Newsweek was on The Daily Show talking about how they were going to be retooling their image to niche markets to survive.

Hah, I think in the case of Newsweek we are talking about an obsolete product...

I don't want to step into the intellectual quicksand of the "canon."

I would like to speak up for the pleasures of reading William Dean Howells. Two lesser-known novels in the LoA Howells series, "April Hopes" and Annie Kilburn" are compelling reads that move along with dispatch. "Annie Kilburn"'s Tolstoyan Socialism makes for a particularly interesting commentary on American attitudes to the free market.

Yes, "A Hazard of New Fortunes" is a major novel missing from LoA. I would add that, for me, an even bigger sin would be to exclude Howells the critic from LoA -- a major reviewer of the period who wrote influential and penetrating pieces on African-American, women, and European writers. No one, not even James, wrote better about the evolving condition of the critic -- Howells penned prophetic pieces about the transformation of reviewing into a form of marketing, the challenge popular culture posed to criticism, etc.

James is the superior critic, but Howells deserves a volume of his reviews and commentaries ... but given the sales figures, the LoA's embrace of genre fiction, it probably won't happen.

William-
Thanks for speaking up for Howells; as I said before, I have gone through a Master's in English without having even heard of him (to my embarrassment). He is actually one of the writers I am most looking forward to receiving in my subscription. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the presence of genre fiction will prevent Howells' other writing. I think that the "bigger sales" items help bankroll LOA's bottom line and provide the money required for the smaller selling volumes...

Patrick

Patrick,
I hope you are right about Howells appearing again in LoA -- it has been a long time since he last appeared -- 1989 -- over 20 years ago.

Bill

I have long been hoping we would be seeing more Howells in LOA, and I second the call not only for the later novels, but also Howell's critical writings.

I will always be indebted to Howells for supporting the literary careers of two of my favorite writers: Paul Laurence Dunbar and Charles W. Chesnutt.

The first two LOA volumes I ever purchased (long before I began working for the LOA ten years ago) were the William Dean Howells volumes. Both volumes recently went out of stock while we weathered the slowest months of the recession but I'm reprinting both Howells volumes in the next few months.

But ptdixon is correct: it is more likely that we'll be able to do additional volumes of authors like Howells sooner rather than later, because of the recent success of some of our other volumes--not just Lovecraft and Kerouac and Philip K. Dick and Carver, but also the sudden and extraordinary surge in sales of O'Connor and Thurber and Paine and Muir. (Those sales, along with a grant, helped us publish the recent volumes of Emerson's journals.) We do have a plan for publishing additional volumes of Howells; we haven't firmly scheduled them yet, but they will make it into the series.

One thing that might also interest everyone: we had no idea the Lovecraft would sell as well as it did. There were already six other substantial, if different, Lovecraft anthologies on the market, and we were surprised--stunned, actually--that our edition catapulted to the lead in the face of the competition. Had we known or suspected how well it would have sold, we certainly wouldn't have printed so few books for the first printing.

This has been a great thread; I don't have much more to add to the discussion that hasn't already been said except to say that LOA staff members and advisors and consulting scholars wrestle with exactly these same issues every day--over and over and over again.

DCloyceSmith --

Thanks so much for the informative and quick update. Since I agree with Edmund Wilson's verdict -- that H.P. Lovecraft is a terrible (add eight Lovecraftian adjectives of defilement) writer -- I am amused and relieved that the sales of his volume will help publish (to my mind) worthier authors, such as Howells.

My explanation for Lovecraft's stunning popularity? LoA adds a veneer of literary respectability to Lovecraft: "The Colour from Outer Space" looks classier in the LoA format. Schlock horror glazed (or slimed in the case of H.P.) to a diamond-like sheen.

One note -- I am in my mid-50s. I hope the Howells volumes are coming within the next decade or so, before I hit retirement age. Also, I am really glad to see Mencken finally coming into LoA, even though he unfairly trashed Howells as an old maid. Too bad Mencken never took on the giant flying octopus of Lovecraft -- that whacking would have well worth reading.

Thanks
Bill

Given the financial upheaval of recent months, A Hazard of New Fortunes and its depiction of queasy fin-de-siecle economic turbulence would be right on time. The plot's concern with publishing worthy writing during the aftermath of the Gilded Age should resonate with LOA. Time to move Howells up on the calendar.

I think that people underestimate how big HP Lovecraft is in popular culture. He has inspired the Call of Cthulu RPG and associated card games, video games, movies (Reanimator, etc) and various other products well known outside his writings. People are drawn to his works because of the creepy mythos he created and want to know more about it. I would bet that most are buying this volume to experience his writing for the first time.

In regards to the popularity of the LOA volume, I am not at all surprised that the LOA edition became the most popular- people like nice books! As Bill said, if I can pick between a tacky anthology with an ugly cover or a nice understated LOA, it is an easy choice..

The "Genre writers" sales not only make enough to subsidize other editions, I would be willing to bet that they raise the sales of other editions as well. I think I am evidence of this additional benefit of the genre writers; I should be embarrassed to say--but I am not-- that HPL was the first volume that I purchased; that purchase led me to an interest in collecting the series.

I should make an additional point about volumes in the main LOA series.

Although certainly sales is on everyone's minds (mine probably more than most other staff members), an author or volume is not added to series based on whether or not it will sell. As I'm sure you realize, if we chose our selections based on what would sell, the series would look a whole lot different than it does--as, perhaps, would my paycheck. (Our editors and consultants, in any case, are often quite oblivious as to what is selling in the series.)

Instead, a list of authors or topics have been "approved" for publishing based on a number of factors, along the lines of what has been discussed in this thread. From that list, we try to schedule books each year to insure a mix of genres, a mix of periods, and a mix of good sales and mediocre sales--all circumscribed by what's ready to go to press (editorially and legally). An additional consideration is that some books sell well to subscribers; others sell better in the trade. Also, sometimes a centenary or a new biography might provide us with an opportunity to finally publish something we've been hoping to publish anyway--precisely because the sales will be higher if we take advantage of the synchronicity. (Predicting sales involves a bit of crystal-ball gazing, but we actually have a pretty good track record at making sure things even out in any given year.)

Thus, in any given year (or span of years), you can pick out books that are pretty obviously not going to sell that well alongside books that will almost certainly sell well.

In other words, the impression I want to avoid is that our editorial board is selecting volumes simply because they will sell. (And, trust me, I have a list of recent titles that would prove to you how this is absolutely not the case.)

45> HPL was my first two! (well, technically my second. Got one of the Dreisers and a couple of the poetry collections for $2 each at a library book sale).

12> The problem with your position is that claiming that a canon is above or beyond politics is ultimately a self-serving--though perhaps not self-conscious--stance that claims the criterion of excellence for only "our founding or our intellectual origins and heritage." If that isn't a starkly drawn political boundary, what is? The "our" is assumed to have certain characteristics, no? It is certainly no less political than the assertion that alternatives to that criterion of "excellence," expressed for example, in the work of writers who operated within a second-class citizenship in America due to accident of birth and who made those conditions the subject of their work, is political. Whether or not the canon-makers of the past wanted to hear it, writers who have given voice to aspects of American life deemed inappropriate for a canon of "excellence" did nothing if not point out the falsity of the tastemakers' claims to political neutrality.

About a year ago, I launched a discussion on this page on the premise that, if LOA is the Hall of Fame of American writers, who should be in the Hall of Fame? Just as with the Baseball Hall of Fame, the actual list is less interesting than the discussion it can generate as readers engage in lively conversation about what makes books and writers great. The impact of the ideas, the quality of the writing, the insight into character or behavior, the durability of the story from generation to generation, etc.

There is a pleasure in parsing out the strengths and weaknesses of writers and books. However, the idea of a permanent list of great writers or an academically sanctioned canon, is, mercifully, something of a lost cause. Times change, manners change, politics changes. What we as readers want and need from books changes. Reputations rise and fall. It's all part of the fun.

>49 pm11:. For those who are interested in looking at that thread, I am guessing it is the thread entitled "Roth, Bellow, Cheever, Dick, who else?"

Canons exist whether we want them to or not. As long as we have a shared cultural heritage and are still able to deem some writers better than others, there will be some considered best of all. However, there are many ways of perceiving value, and the value of one work may not be related to that of another.

For example, Lovecraft is a very accomplished myth maker with a worldwide following whose work is given critical validity by writers like Joyce Carl Oates and Ursula LeGuin. However, his detractors are not suffering from a lack of taste. The traits which repulse them are there in his work. I'm a big fan and own more or less his complete works in hardback. Still, I'm not about to argue his merit as a writer if who I'm comparing him to is Henry James. But that's unfair. We don't value these writers for the same thing. Lovecraft created modern horror, in my view, but he didn't do it with consumate artistry (hence the incomplete selection of tales). However, his work is the product of a nightmarish imagination that is virtually unsurpassed in the 20th century.

I also would argue that Shirley Jackson most definitely deserves a volume. Her stock has increased since the days we read The Lottery in middle school. Most of the minor writers LOA puts out have a following of readers and a body of critical work justifying their inclusion. I can't think of one which doesn't.

Journalism, Sermons (which are a legitimate literary form) and speeches all have their place in the series. LOA, or even any literary canon, is not about fiction and poetry exclusively.

> 9

I would say "America's best and most significant writing" are two different things that may, or may not, overlap. In that sense, I am not bothered by the notion of Ayn Rand being included given Atlas Shrugged often being cited as the second most influential book of all time, second to the Bible.

I guess it is Americans who are citing Rand as the most influential work?
Us Europeans (well some of us anyway) would invoke Marx or Sartre instead ;-)

But I definitely enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged and I would love to see the Library of America publish it.

I do not know whether her works are available to print?

I don't doubt that it is largely Americans with Rand as an influence; that does make me curious what here international popularity is like...

I won't hold my breath for the LOA Rand volumes; I am sure they won't be available until it goes public domain, those Randian folks keep her works under lock and key.

On the notion of the 'canonical': I think the Library of America has a duty (?) to revive, raise from the dead, or whatever you may call it, those works which have fallen into the forgotten and obscure genre.

I realise I am showing my ignorance here, but until I started buying Library of America books, I had not come across William Dean Howells. The Rise of Silas Lapham appeals to me as one of those books that reminds us of the important things in life, I would humbly suggest.

It is great to see institutions reviving bygone and obscure works. I recently discovered Slightly Foxed quarterly and it does a similarly noble calling albeit on the micro scale.