Flowers and thorns : pleasures and perils of the (Literature)‎ anthology

Abstract EN

The claims and conclusions I make in this article primarily address issues pertinent to anthologies of literature, and theory and criticism.

The anthology has traditionally served general readership, and it has recently become an important feature of university education.

Beginning with a discussion of the contradictions the anthology entails (one and many; silent and polyphonic; despised and revered), the article then proceeds to acknowledge the value of the anthology as a genre that, for centuries, has pleased readers with, as most anthologies would claim, "the best" of its subject: "the flowers of literature." Moreover, it refers to the role of the anthology in domesticating the outpouring of writers and texts by giving them some order and coherence.

Then, the article moves to examine the thorns haunting the anthology.

This includes a lengthy discussion of anthological claims to including "the best" writers and texts, and to comprehensive representativeness.

What does "the best" mean? Who decides this "best"? Is this category of "the best" stable? These are some of the questions the article engages with and exerts some effort to answer.

By drawing attention to some shortcomings of the genre, an anthology, the article concludes, should be approached with caution.

It is better understood as a beginning towards more exploration of the richness of its subject which, it must be clear, cannot be fully represented in an anthology, i.e., a selection.