from Harrigans

. . .



The future canon will be based upon book sales. Questions like “how and why did so-and-so sell so many books” will take prominence in the classroom.

Scholars will seek ways to quantify other characteristics of literature, but until they succeed, 'book sales' will determine focus. Even if and when someone succeeds at measuring something like the “beauty” of work, those measurements will go on to impact book sales, which means that ‘copies sold’ is likely to remain the determining criterion of canonical merit.

A sizable minority of writers will continue to judge themselves by other, unquantifiable standards. They will continue inveterate pursuits and initiate novel chases wherein they employ language to achieve what have you. However, compared to the main race, these lesser races will attract fewer and fewer competitors. Less competition will mean less development. Within this alternative sector, progress will be slow and results diluted, not only because of fewer entrants into their so-called race, but because of the non-quantifiable definition of their object(s). Some will agree on a general goal, like “beauty,” but disagree as to the definition of its exact nature. Others will seek disparate goals altogether. Consequently, the alternative race will deliquesce into countless little races -- many no race at all, for one horse does not a race make.

However, inasmuch as alternative writers remain united by an opposition to quantifiable standards of literature -- namely 'book sales' -- as the determinant of reputation and canonical merit, their competition will yield some significant results. There will also be the achievements of the occasional and exceptional “lone wolf” to consider. But bear in mind that even if a lone wolf eschews the pack completely, it will still rely heavily on its own genetic code; and, the code will suffer from the lack of competition in the recent past even if its bearer is immune from the competitive circumstance of the moment.

And, regardless of these forces, some alternative writers (many under the protection of a traditionally significant genre -- like poetry) will likely to enter into the canon, much as collegiate women players enter the Basketball Hall of Fame.


In contrast, the competition will only intensify among writers engineering language to achieve market impact; and, out of a fiercer arms race will come fiercer arms. The spectacular achievements borne of this competition will attract yet more attention from scholars, will further solidify ‘book sales’ as the primary characteristic by which literature should be valued, which in turn will sway yet more writers to enter the main race, and so on, until the inevitable exhaustion. The best-sellers will be the "Michael Jordans" of the Hall.


In summary, the study and appreciation of literature will not be exempt from two trends in evidence for all other sectors of human endeavor. Trend one is to better understand the world by relying more heavily on quantitative methods and statistical analysis. This trend reflects the rising role of the quantifiable in our personal value systems. Such quantity-informed value systems were once labeled --pejoratively -- as “materialistic,” but are increasingly called “non-ideological,” a label that has positive connotations. The change in nomenclature hints that such a value system is still in ascent.

Trend two, which likewise cuts across academic and non-academic sectors, is to emphasize a larger structure when analyzing a cultural phenomenon. A book will not be studied so much in and of itself -- whatever that means -- but as an interaction with and a document of a culture as a whole. To study books will increasingly mean to study culture through books, and future scholars will naturally zero in on those books which sell the most copies.

Finally, the present rate (likely only to increase) at which raw linguistic data is generated means that scholars will not have much choice in these matters. In an era where every email and social networking update is archived, scholars will find themsleves in need of increasingly specific material criteria upon which to direct their searches through the infinitudes of words. Everything is now preserved regardless of “quality”, and old notions of longevity are obsolete. In the past, words were preserved according to a trait such as “literary value” which was in fact nothing but an evaluation by an institution which preserved literature, be it a church, a university, or a publishing house. Now, it is not what gets preserved, but what gets read, and what got read will determine what gets preserved in future university canons -- so insists “anthropological interest.”

This is not so much a prediction as an extrapolation of current trends.