L-idea tal-kanonu letterarju : idea tajba?

Abstract

Il-kritika letterarja lokali, fejn teżisti, hija fil-maġġorparti tagħha kritika melliesa żżejjed; fejn ma teżistix, il-kittieba nfushom iħossuhom mitlufin għax ma jsibu ebda forma ta’ kejl jew standard biex jimxu miegħu. Fost ir-riperkussjonijiet ta’ din l-atmosfera lokali “fejn kollox jgħaddi” hemm il-kwalità letterarja dibattibbli ta’ xi kotba bil-Malti u ż-żieda fil-produzzjoni tagħhom. Għaldaqstant, tinħass il-ħtieġa ta’ xi mekkaniżmu li mhux biss jiggwida lill-qarrejja liema kotba jaqraw, imma li, qabelxejn, jinforma aħjar lill-pubblikaturi nfushom dwar liema xorta ta’ manuskritti għandhom jinvestu fihom fost il-ħemel li jirċievu. Għaldaqstant, fost il-funzjonijiet fundamentali tal-kanonu letterarju, tibqa’ tispikka l-funzjoni ta’ gwida li toffri xi forma ta’ kriterji jew standards tal-kwalità li, għalkemm qatt ma jistgħu jkunu assoluti u permanenti, xorta jistgħu jaqdu din il-funzjoni utilitarja. Fost il-kriterji l-aktar kurrenti hemm dawk imħaddna minn ħassieba li jeżaltaw l-element ta’ ibridità inkorporat fit-test letterarju jew inkella dawk imħaddna minn ħassieba oħrajn li jfittxu fix-xogħlijiet dawk il-kwalitajiet li jrendu l-idea tal-omniversalità jew tal-universalità letterarja. Madankollu, id-djalettika tal-kanonu letterarju xorta tibqa’ għajn ta’ kontestazzjoni u ta’ dubji minħabba li, bħal f’kull attività intellettwali oħra, mekkaniżmu bħal dan qatt ma jista’ jkun ħieles mis-suġġettività umana. Dan jimplika wkoll li l-fiduċja tal-qarrejja fil-ġudizzji kritiċi tal-kanonizzaturi, sew jekk huma akkademiċi, pubblikaturi, antoloġisti, aġġudikanti tal-premjijiet jew membri fil-bordijiet tas-sillabi, tibqa’ problematika.

When local literary criticism takes place, for the most part it is overly mellow; when it is not, writers themselves might feel lost because there seems to be no standard to follow or measure against. Amongst the repercussions of this local atmosphere “where everything is acceptable” is the literary quality of books in Maltese and, consequently, the surge in their production. Therefore, the need arises for some sort of mechanism that guides readers on which books to read and, moreover, one that informs publishers about the kind of manuscripts they should be investing in, from the piles they receive. In this context, amongst the fundamental functions of the literary canon, its guiding role remains pivotal, as it offers a form of quality criteria or standards, which albeit never absolute and permanent, can still serve this utilitarian function. Among the most current criteria, there are those embraced by thinkers who exalt the element of hybridity incorporated in the literary text; there are also other standards recognised by theorists who seek qualities rendering the idea of omniversality or literary universality. Nevertheless, the dialectic of the literary canon remains a source of contestation and doubts, since like with any other intellectual activity, such a mechanism can never be totally autonomous from human subjectivity. This also implies that the readers’ blind trust in the critical judgments of the canonisers, whether they are academics, publishers, anthologists, award adjudicators or members of syllabi boards, remains problematic.