The Essay on American literature excludes Indigenous oral traditions, Spanish-language literature, African-American literature, and Asian-American literature!
By Joe Fernandez
Commentary And Analysis . . . The map isn’t the territory.
The canon isn’t American literature.
American literature was vast, diverse, and contested.
It’s shaped by Indigenous oral traditions, Spanish-language literature, African-American literature and Asian-American literature.
It’s shaped by voices that have been marginalised, silenced, and erased.
(https://bigthinkmedia.substack.com/p/american-literature-charted-in-one)
The essay on “A Literary Map of the United States” was fine piece of cultural criticism. It’s also cultural criticism that uncritically reproduces the canon. It does not ask who decides. It does not interrogate the process of selection. It does not acknowledge the omissions.
This was failure of intellectual honesty. It has consequences, not just for literary scholarship, but for how we understand the nation itself.
“The truth, once it emerges, cannot be hidden.”
The truth of American literature was that it isn’t single story. It’s the story of Indigenous peoples, Spanish-speaking communities, African-American and Asian-American.
The map was the start. The work of inclusion was ongoing. It’s the business of scholars, critics, and citizens for continuing that work.
The essay on “A Literary Map of the United States” was celebration of American literary geography.
It was intelligent, well-crafted, and genuinely engaging.
It charts over 400 literary landmarks across the nation, from Stephen King’s Maine until Steinbeck’s California. It introduces the concepts of “imaginative geography,” “toponymic capture,” and “authorial inscription.” It was, by any measure, fine cultural criticism.
It’s also cultural criticism that reveals a profound and unexamined assumption: that American literature was what the canon says it was. That the map was neutral. That the selection was obvious. That there was no debate about who decides what counts.
This assumption was false. And it’s the business of the legal scholar on exposing false assumptions.
The essay presents map of American literature that was, in fact, a map of canonical American literature, the literature that has been recognised, anthologised, and taught in universities. It does not interrogate the process by which that recognition occurs. It does not ask who decides.
This isn’t minor omission. It’s fundamental failure of intellectual honesty. It has consequences, not just for literary scholarship, but for how we understand the nation itself.
The literary canon was not neutral description of excellence. It’s product of historical forces: colonialism, racism, class prejudice, and institutional gatekeeping. It’s shaped by publishers, professors, critics, and anthologists, all of whom have biases, explicit or otherwise.
The map’s selection of eleven canonical authors—Irving, Hawthorne, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Lee, Lewis, Keillor, Anderson, Capote, Proulx, Steinbeck—reproduces this gatekeeping without acknowledging it. It treats these authors as self-evidently important, as if their importance were a fact of nature rather than a product of history.
But consider the omissions:
Indigenous oral traditions: The map claims to chart “the stories that changed how we see a nation.” Indigenous peoples have been telling stories about this land for millennia—long before the arrival of Europeans. These stories are not “literature” in the Western sense, but they are foundational in the American landscape. They are absent from the map.
Spanish-language literature: The American Southwest has a rich literary tradition in Spanish, dating back centuries. Authors like Rudolfo Anaya (Bless Me, Ultima), Sandra Cisneros (The House on Mango Street), and Julia Alvarez (In the Time of the Butterflies) have shaped the geography of the American imagination. They are absent from the map.
African-American literature: While the essay mentions Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, it does not mention Toni Morrison (Beloved, Song of Solomon), James Baldwin (Go Tell It on the Mountain), or Richard Wright (Native Son). These authors have shaped the American literary imagination as profoundly as any on the map.
Asian-American literature: Authors like Maxine Hong Kingston (The Woman Warrior), Amy Tan (The Joy Luck Club), and Jhumpa Lahiri (The Namesake) have transformed the American literary landscape. They are absent from the map.
The map isn’t neutral. It’s statement of values. And the values it expresses are those of the canonical gatekeepers.
Map Masks Political Function
The map was designed for being hangable in the home. It’s decorative object. Its purpose was about being pleasing, not provocative. This aesthetic function masks its political function.
A map of American literature that excludes Indigenous, Spanish-language, Asian-American, and African-American literature was not neutral representation; it’s representation that says: these are the stories that matter; these are the stories that don’t.
The essay does not acknowledge this. It does not ask why certain authors were included and others were excluded. It does not interrogate the process of selection. It simply presents the map as fait accompli.
This was failure of intellectual honesty. And it’s particularly problematic in the context of a legal and constitutional order that was supposedly inclusive, pluralistic, and committed for equality.
Politics of Recognition
The rule of law was the basis of the Constitution. It’s the foundation of our constitutional democracy. It’s the guarantee that all persons—regardless of race, religion, or origin—will be treated equally before the law.
The rule of law isn’t just about legal procedure; it’s also about recognition. It’s about who was recognised as subject of rights, who was recognised as member of the community, who was recognised as having a voice.
The map of American literature was map of recognition. It recognises some authors and excludes others. It says: these authors have shaped our understanding of the nation; these authors have not.
This isn’t trivial matter. Recognition matters. It shapes how we see ourselves and how we see others. It shapes who was included and who was excluded. It shapes the story we tell about who we are.
The map tells a story about America that was incomplete. It tells a story that’s white, English-speaking, and canonical. It tells a story that excludes Indigenous peoples, Spanish-speaking communities, Asian-Americans, and significant portions of the African-American experience.
This story was false. Or, at the very least, it is incomplete.
Media, the Canon, and the Two-Week Horizon
The essay was part of media ecosystem that reinforces the canon. It’s published on platform with wide reach. It’s promoted for large audience. It’s shared, liked, and commented upon.
This matters. The media helps bring in the votes for those who remain in the public eye.
Human beings can forget anything after two weeks. All they can remember are names and the face that goes with it. Nothing becomes an issue unless it’s in the media. If an issue does not go away in two weeks, it becomes a controversy. Controversies will not end unless there’s closure.
The map’s inclusion of canonical authors was form of media amplification. It keeps these authors in the public eye. It reinforces their status. It makes it harder for excluded authors gaining recognition.
This isn’t conspiracy. It’s structural feature of the media landscape. It’s feature that deserves critical examination.
Revised Map
A map of American literature that truly reflected the nation’s diversity would include those excluded: Indigenous oral traditions, Spanish-language literature, African-American literature, and Asian-American literature.
This isn’t exhaustive list. It’s illustration of what more inclusive map would look like.
The essay could have acknowledged this. It could have said: the map was incomplete; it’s starting point, not definitive statement. It could have invited readers on considering who was missing and why.
It did not.
Recognition Matters
The exclusion of Indigenous oral traditions, Spanish-language literature, Asian-American literature, and African-American literature from the map was not just literary issue; it’s constitutional issue.
The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. It guarantees freedom of speech. It guarantees religious freedom. These guarantees are meaningless if they are not accompanied by recognition, recognition that all persons, all communities, and all stories are entitled for equal consideration.
The map’s exclusion of these literatures waa form of de-recognition. It says: your stories do not matter. It says: you do not matter.
This isn’t acceptable. It’s the business of legal scholar on saying so. — TJT
Longtime Borneo watcher Joe Fernandez has been writing for many years on both sides of the Southeast Asia Sea. He should not be mistaken for a namesake formerly with the Daily Express in Kota Kinabalu. JF keeps a Blog under FernzTheGreat, as jurist (legal scholar), on the nature of human relationships.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Jesselton Times.
