Subscription 790/year or 190/quarter

Needless and no cannon

Feminists often complain about the male canon. Here are two women who just repeat it. Uncertain for what reason.


It has become popular to launch canon listings again; not least because of the choleric bulldozer Harold Bloom, who is gaining and intensifying the publication the more who judge his opinions north and down. By the way, Bloom has got a helping hand in Camille Paglia, which has probably made Bloom edible for newer radical and marginalized environments.

Scruella Servile

Ane Farsethås and Øyvor Dalan Vik, literary and film critic respectively in Dagens Næringsliv, will join essential give us an insight into the "classics of literature and film", in particular 175 works in literature, drama and film. But the selection of fiction literature and fiction films is sensationally traditional. Dalan Vik, the woman behind columnist pseudonym Scruella De Ville, states: "During my work on this review, I have encountered countless discussions, both with myself and colleagues." essential. For this is a book written by Scruella Servil.

I do not understand why F&V has not used the opportunity to launch its own and disliked favorites. Then they could have made a much more interesting book, and got lots of free PR by waving the palimpsest flag ("palimpsest" is writing hidden by male writing tradition, something feminists dig up and reconstruct).

I'll give you some examples of some needs: Novels: Edgar Huntley, St. Leon, Tired Men, Miss P. og To some critics. Movies: Swedish Loving, the Finnish The well og The Prodigal Son (Tuhlaajapoika), Rumble Fish, Fun, Metal skin og Shallow Grave.


Film history has received 40 percent of the page number of literary history. It seems reasonable, both in terms of historical weighting and the abilities of the authors. The articles are short, usually only 20-35 sentences. Writing relevant, relevant, original and good in such a small space is difficult. Farsethås recovered reasonably well from the task. Vik obviously struggles more, aided only by a stack of secondary literature and short time as a film critic.

"Essence" mainly connotes something abstract and unchangeable, that is, closer language hen passwords. And although F&V itself does not change anything, it is obvious that such a revision is ongoing all the time – not least, feminists in recent years have thrown themselves into every little cream from Harold Bloom. And according to the unhistorical and conservative elitist TS Eliot, canon change can even happen without that critics interfere; he has described how this alleged ahistorical hierarchy objectively corrects and adjusts itself (sic) when time is rare.

The clan forever!

What are the reasons behind starting the movie review with the racist mastodon Birth of a Nation I do not know, but in any case it is just nonsense that DW Griffiths "reportedly has been completely indifferent to Dixon's applause of racism". Griffith was well acquainted with both novels and Dixon's dramatization of them, so the Negro warning of the time and place is no accident at work. Dalan Vik also reminds the reader that "the concept of racism did not have the same content in 1915 as it does today".

No, you can safely say that. Here we are not talking about politically correct language usage: Lynchings of blacks were almost everyday cost when the movie was made. Viks assumed blistered aesthetic defense of this movie does not help. It is undoubtedly film-historical that the film is important when it comes to narrative technique; beyond that, I see no reason to start every bizarre movie historical review with this white rug for the Ku Klux Klan.

When will Norwegian publishers start publishing books that take into account that Norwegians and women are among the peoples "who read the most" and "have the most education"?

Smarter than lexicon

It is easy to see which texts are put into work and which are based on used information and reference works. Both authors have some very good articles (the novel Don Quixote, Peer Gynt, the novel Hunger, the movie Frankenstein (1931) and M, but most are looser than what can be found in encyclopedias. And then he & she wonder what is the point of the whole work.

The hardcover and illustrated book, in Norwegian tradition, caters to an audience who is assumed to know nothing about literary and film history. When will Norwegian publishers start publishing books that take into account that Norwegians and women are among the peoples "who read most" and "have the most education"?

In general, the literature-historical part is factual and often apt. The movie history is more uneven, impressionistic and has a little too much cliché circulation. Still, the book must be considered to be relatively successful based on what I do tror it is meant to be. Men, I really wonder who will buy this book: If you have studied, you know more than this for a long time, you are especially interested: ditto. If you do not know anything about literature and film, it is related to giving a total bang. Then: Cappelen, Farsethås and Vik: Why?

Kjetil Korslund
Kjetil Korslund
Historian of ideas and critic.

You may also like