While many people believe that the idea of a literary canon is elitist, in Aatif Rashid’s blog, “In Defense of a Literary Canon”, he agrees with Arthur Krystal’s notion of literature in his book, This Thing We Call Literature, disputing this commonly believed idea. Krystal’s view on literature recognizes that there is a distinction in how effectively a book articulates past and present knowledge, making some books better quality than others. Krystal and Rashid believe in the intention of literary canons are to create a sense of unity and national literature, which departs from the origination of the canon from the Bible, meaning “measuring stick” or “rule”.  Krystal acknowledges this difference, as he believes that there is a discrepancy between “a list of Great Books and the idea that some books are far better than others” (Krystal). Both authors agree that this distinction was lost within the argument of whether literary canons are effective or not. Rashid depicts this argument by using an example of Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg’s list of favorite books. When the list was posted on Twitter, with the book Ulysess, as the number one, it prompted a Twitter thread that was made to share controversial literary opinions with others. However, this thread soon resulted in people arguing that assessing the quality of literarature is elitist, making literary canons elitist, as well. Rashid refutes this statement remarking that specific types of canons are beneficial, as it is the way canons are presented which creates the issue. He specifically mentions Harold Bloom’s “Western Canon”, saying that Bloom reinforces the defective ideology of western civilization, making the western part of the canon problematic, but not the style of the canon itself. 

Krystal summarizes his philosophy of a canon which recognizes the difference between a good and bad book in terms of “hierarchical thinking and aesthetic criteria” (Krystal). This awareness of great writers can cause an influence that restricts but also allows for unforeseen possibilities. These opportunities help writers improve their work, as paradoxically, good cannot exist without the presence of bad. Some books achieve this more effectively than others, becoming better or great works of literature. In conclusion, it is not wrong for these books to be recognized as such.