American professor of Philosophy Paul Holmer once wrote, “Literature adds to reality, it does not simply describe it. It enriches the necessary competencies that daily life requires and provides; and in this respect, it irrigates the deserts that our lives have already become” (Holmer 28). This is a powerful description of a human activity that many have participated in over the centuries, and that many have sought to understand and analyze in scholarship. For both the writer and the reader, there is significance to literature that revolves around purpose, perception, and prediction. These factors are quintessential in understanding which books should be revered and which should not.

One of the most important aspects in the canonization of books concerns purposefulness. Most professional writers attempt their craft with serious intentions, putting a great deal of thought into word choice, character depiction, plot outline, etc. They write their piece(s) to present a particular message to their readers, one that hopefully resonates with the reader at various levels--social, political, or philosophical.

Of course, some writers do this well and others with more difficulty, but writing that offers no possibility of understanding the potential purposes of the writer should not be included in the canon. It is like having a can of water in the desert, but with no can-opener. Similarly, the product of writing without purpose becomes dead weight and should be discarded.

Additionally, perception in writing is also important to canonization. Good literature allows for the reader to understand what is going on inside the story, at least at a nominal level. Plot, characters, themes are accessible, even though some deeper understandings of the aforementioned are harder to perceive than others. Canonized writings have apparent aspects for examination and are sensible.

Works that do not allow for clear perception and that only bewilder the reader should not be allowed into the canon. If the common reader, scholarly or other, cannot understand what is going on within a work, then there is no possibility of categorizing it besides calling it non-understandable. Such a work is basically just an exercise in letter arrangement and verb conjugation—a dictionary would have more perceived meaning to the reader.

Another aspect of canonized literature is that it offers the reader predictions of human behavior, moral norms, or cultural status. Within the writing, the reader can see what the author is foreseeing for society based on his/her snapshot of life. It is social commentary for the present, but it is also observations of the far off. In some ways, this relates to the purposes of the writer in that he or she might be offering a warning to the reader; however, the writer may have no ultimate opinion on the prediction except that it will reverberate into the future.

All three of these aspects can be understood in regarding why a work should or should not be allowed into the canon by considering two books—Ulysses by James Joyce and Planet of the Apes by Pierre Boulle. Both works are “fun” to read; yet, Ulysses offers little to reader in regards to purpose, perception, and prediction of the author, while Planet of the Apes offers cynical, social commentary presented throughout its pages. Because of this, Ulysses should not be allowed into the canon and Planet of the Apes should be included.

Both Ulysses and Planet of the Apes have been both condemned and praised in academic circles. What is pivotal in both works is their use (or destruction) of historical, social, literary conventions. In the Planet of the Apes, the reader can easily see what purposes Boulle has for his work, s/he can perceive what Boulle is basing his social commentary on, and is able to understand the future implications on humanity as predicted by Boulle. It may be fantasy, but it makes sense.

Ulysses, on the other hand, is not understandable. In fact, because of its stream-of-consciousness presentation, the reader has little to go on in understanding the purposes of the author or the contents within the story or any social, historical, or philosophical implications. Literature has purpose, perceived meaning, and offers predictions on reality; bad writing does not and gives little benefit to the reader. Hopefully, the motivation, explanations, and future implications of this author’s position on canonization has added clarity to the topic.

Works Cited

Boulle, Pierre. 1963. Planet of the Apes. Vanguard Press.

Holmer, Paul L. 1976. C. S. Lewis: The Shape of His Faith and Thought. Harper & Row.

Joyce, James. 2024. Ulysses. Nielsen.