Did I Really Study Norse Crap

In college, being an English major, I spent countless hours studying old works of literature such as Beowulf or Sir Gawain and the Green Night or any number of Greek plays. In class we dissected works like these from every conceivable angle. We had endless conversations on the meanings of the tiniest line of dialogue or the smallest puncuation. Now why did we spend all this time in looking at these works? Because they are Literature and, as such, are seen as invaluably deep and important. But how do we know these works are real literature, works of art? Often they are one of the few works from a particular culture or time period to survive to modern times. Still, this does not mean they were ever meant to be great. As far as we know they were intended to be pieces of disposable entertainment, which somehow, through some quirk of fate - usually involving medieval monks who loved to copy things - managed to survive, while the 'real' works of art perished. As far as we know, Beowulf was the Con-Air of Norse culture. We only think it's great because we still have it, while the Norse Citizen Kane has been lost forever to the dust bin of history. So, for years, we may have elevating crap to the status of art.

This brings one very interesting question to mind: What if the same thing happens to us? What if the only work that survives from our culture of say the last 20-50 years is total crap, but since later cultures don't know about our better cultural contributions they think the stuff is brilliant? Imagine, if you can, that the only works to survive centuries from now are: A DVD of Mr. Nanny, a Vanilla Ice To the Extreme tape, a few episodes of Family Matters, and a bunch of Archie comics. Now, centuries from now, one of two things would happen. Either our culture would be dismissed as incredibly crass, inane, and ridiculous - which, sadly would not be far from the truth - or these works would be assumed to be the pinnacle of our art and they would thus be lifted up to lofty status and studied ad naseum by musty academics.

I know that it's bizarre to imagine a class taking a serious look at the gender dynamics and buried metaphysical depths of Mr. Nanny or looking at the heroic archetypes in 'Ice, Ice, Baby', but, who knows, maybe we've been doing the same thing to Beowulf all these years. All these theoretical future academics won't know that most people now think Vanilla Ice sucks, that he was only popular for a brief period of time, or that he is widely considered a joke. They won't know that 'Ice, Ice, Baby' actually samples from a much better Queen/David Bowie song - although, as he once hilariously explained, he did change the beat from ding-a-ding-a-ding-ding to ding-a-ding-a-DING-ding. They won't know this so they very well could compare "Stop, collaborate and listen" to Homer's appeal to the muse at the beginning of The Odyssey. Then again, maybe Homer was nothing more than a Grecian Jerry Bruckheimer.

Do, you see the problem here? Can we ever really be 100% sure we are reading something great, or do we just have to rely on what everyone says? What if everyone says something's great just because we assume it must be? After all, shouldn't there be some sort of cultural Darwinism where the great survive while the lame perish? Maybe, but we just don't know. I want to believe that Homer was always great, just as I would like to believe Beowulf was always great, because I enjoy both immensely - then again I enjoy a lot of cheesy crap too. I guess what I really want to say is: If you happen to get in time machine and travel hundreds of years in the future, don't be surprised if Urkel has become one of the greatest cultural figures of all time, because maybe a Norseman would feel the same thing about how we view Beowulf. Who knows, maybe "Do you got any cheese" will rank with "to be or not to be". You know what, I'm strangely OK with that.

Shalom