“…2 While I can't reproduce every possible reference to the canon, it can be and has been variously described as: an ongoing process, a set of conventions, a library, a museum, a mausoleum, a group of people, a series of institutions, a series of value judgements both overt and covert, a system made out of individuals, a gestalt, a ghost or spectre haunting Western civilization, a garbage dump, a conversation, a conversation about itself, a system with lots of moving parts and variables as well as interactions with other systems and thus other sets of variables, either a monstrosity or the only thing preventing monstrosities depending on who you ask, culturally foundational or influential texts, a tradition internalized and/or externalized, the idols of Western culture and its acolytes, an aggregation of personal valuations by people who are themselves influential, texts that are central instead of marginal, a list of criteria or qualities, a form of myopia; an obligation, an ought rather than an is, a set of practices more so than an entity, an act or series of acts of categorization, an idea mostly, an anthology, a response to widespread personal and cultural anxieties, a curriculum. Howe (1991/2015), and Harold Bloom (1973/1997, among others...and range from...organizing texts in an academic field to preserving cultural struggles and serving as models and inspiration for future writers" (16). This common set of justifications for the canon's existence has even led some to try and pin down its exact contents.…”