Thats an interesting view, though, I guess with the way in which society has moved these days, it was inevitable that we had to go there.
I do believe though, that texts have different values for different people. For example, would the taming of the shrew have the same significance to a male, fascist dictator, and a corporate business woman today (maybe not the best example).
So then, what makes the Canon a canon.
And then, what would make a text inherently good? No matter how hard you try, there is absolutely no way in which a text will appeal to every single person. So then, how do we choose the canon?
Shakespeare's works are so often praised for their universality, but can we really say for sure? This would certainly be true in his time, though wouldn't you agree that our context is radically different in terms of language and culture?
I guess i really take more of a New Historicist view. There are good postmodernist texts, and there are bad ones. Same as there are good classics and there are ones which become unbearable.
I would call Pulp Fiction an excellent postmodernist work, but would you?
The problem, you might find, would be finding a universal canon, instead of the discrete ones that we may eventually end up having because of the large differences between people in the world.
Just my 2 cents.
I was more specifically referring to 'Western' canon, which narrows down the entire range of experience.
In my view, within the confines of our modern time, I believe we can choose texts over others first by the skill with which they are written and constructed. I certainly believe this aspect to be far more objective (even if not 100%, then very close). The first condition for a text being a 'candidate', so to speak, for the canon, ought to be this, as it allows us to eliminate a lot of unwanted garbage. We can then further differentiate the degree to which they have achieved greatness in technical perfection (purpose will also be important here [another factor which is easily graspable and close to universal] as this will determine style - fore example, I am here referring almost exclusively to literary works; a purely historical/political work would have different criteria for quality). I'll own here that there is a stage where different texts fit the criteria so well that comparison between them in regards to this becomes meaningless and puerile. Thus we come to the issue of universality of content/experience, appeal and also influence within its original context.
I can understand that there are many clashes of perspectives, and that in many regards there is little way of determining absolutely what is a 'universal' experience. However, I do think that there are some universals, which have been existent in most (if not all) cultures and which drive events and history. Politics, legal operations, religions (including lack thereof, uncertainties, conflicts etc), War, society, human nature and the human experience/struggle. These affect all people in some way; others more and others less. Texts which fulfil the criteria for the above paragraph AND deal with these issues (there are probably some others) and all the sub-issues under each one in a particularly brilliant or profound way can (and should be) candidates for canon. In addition, works which deal with the major issues of the zeitgeist in like brilliant manner are to be valued equally, and to be equally possible for inclusion in the canon. I would hold that their are basic intuitive ways humans interpretate and evaluate stuff, and that therefore most of these great works (as they have in the past) will be apparent and strike the right chords. The fact that, by definition canonical works have survived their original context and achieved a timeless value is testament to this.
I also think that should right for our times and for our culture. THis brings into the debate issues surrounding 'power' amd repression of different peoples and the 'dominant' culture. This is, however, a silly reason for criticising the current canon. Does the fact that Virgil supported Roman imperialism (the wrongful enthrallment and opression of other peoples, to use the pm rhetoric) in any way detract from the masterfulness of his poetry? Do his lessons about human nature, the human struggle and human experience which aren't just related to expansionism suddenly become nullifyed? Of course not; indeed that is part of our skill, to evaluate texts and take what is still applicable and true. Are the issues about ambition which Shakespeare deals in "Macbeth" any less true because of what is seen by moderns to be a mysoginistic attitude to women? No, the issues are separate. Ambition (of the self and others) affects everyone, we can be pretty sure - this, surely, makes it a universal worthy of continous canonisation.
I would have no problem with certain groups creating and maintaining their own 'canon's. But for the "Western Canon" we must take that which has the greatest significance for the greatest number of people while being written better than almost anything else, and that has also had considerable influence in both its original context and all the following contexts. When a group is large enough, then some of its classics may be integrated into the main body. By this logic, it is right for us to include The "Communist manifesto", just as an example, in the greater Canon, even though the majority of the Western democratic population don't identify with it.
