Waiting for the 20th Century

A third point is that one has to wait till stage III before it is possible to do a course in 20th Century literature. But first let's look at those courses at stage III of 20 writers cited, only two were born in the 20th Century, almost all reached their peak before 1925, and one, Ibsen, had stopped writing ten years before the 20th Century ever started. The main issue is that even considering the way in which it is presently taught, there is no sign of the 20th Century at stage I or II; except for one extra course in New Zealand literature. Why? Now the department has said it has a duty to the canon of English literature, and obviously in its version of that canon the 20th Century does not rate very highly. So it has to make some choices, fine, it can't do, maybe it shouldn't do everything but there should be some explanation for the emphases it does make, if only because it keeps changing its mind about this "canon". This year to be a literate, well rounded etc etc you Had to have Jacobean and Elizabethan drama. From now on, you don't. Why? What have they found out about Kit Marlowe in the meantime?

Moreover, since you must have a pass say, in the Victorians and not in 20th Century prose, it follows that the department deels that Thackery is more important than Joyce. In similar fashion Coleridge beats out Eliot, Dickens outweighs Beckett, Tennyson rates over Lowell, Farquhar above Shaw, and Jane Austen above, D.H. Lawrence beneath. Why should the body of English literature be treated like this?