To the Editors:
While there is no denying the provocative nature of Mark Helprin’s “The Canon Under Siege” in your September 1988 issue, a number of his assertions strike mc as mistaken. Mr. Helprin charges academia with using literature for political ends, discarding “traditionalist” works in favor of writing by “women, minorities, and people of color.” I agree with him that judging literature according to the sex or color of the writer is deplorable. However, isn’t it closer to the truth to say that academia is engaged in an impassioned argument over the merits of certain “traditionalist” works? After all, are the established writers to remain the only names on the list? Are they never to undergo a revaluation, a comparison with newer voices? Many “traditionalists” were not always so. They too waged a struggle for assimilation and acceptance. Mr. Helprin mentions Galileo as an example of a “traditionalist” dismissed by the academic “guerrillas” simply because he was a “white male.” But there was a time when Galileo was dismissed precisely because he was not a “traditionalist” and his ideas were seen as threatening to the establishment viewpoint. I am not saying that we should discard Galileo or Dante or Shakespeare in favor of more contemporary or “politically correct” names, but rather that the debate and discussion that pits one group against the other should be allowed to run its course. Furthermore, academia is very definitely the setting in which the argument should air itself.
At another point in