In “The Anatomy of Melville’s Fame,” O.W. Riegel presents the facts around the reception of Melville’s Moby Dick by the world of literary critics, these figures that hold so much power in their relatively anonymous positions simply with their opinions. A section of the article I found particularly interesting was in page 3, where Reigel is specifically discussing the reception of the British critics when the novel was first published. He writes, “They tested Moby Dick by the canons of unity, coherence and emphasis and found it wanting…Ill feeling, national pride, and a patronizing attitude toward America help to explain the severe condemnation by the English of Melville’s ‘Yankeeisms’ and ‘Go-ahead method.'” This discussion of the so called “canon”, an ever-elusive concept and yet the thing we use to judge the value of every work of art, captured my attention. This book is a prime example of the fact that the goal posts are always changing, however gradually, on what is “valuable” or “good” art, and that the standard is dependent on the subjective perceptions of a small but powerful group of people. This is true not only of art, but of societal structures and norms throughout history. In this case, the British held the power of determining the standard in western literature, and we can see that their judgement stemmed from a sort of prejudice against Americans. This simple ill feeling caused them to discredit the rich work of art we now recognize Moby Dick to be. It was also the fact that the novel was experimental that added to their reasons to devalue it. The “canons of unity, coherence and emphasis” were simply aspects that at the time people had decided represented a “good” novel, and they are all aspects that notably favor a type of consistency in narrative. It is the novel going against this pre-established order and Melville daring to do something new and different that rubbed critics the wrong way. It is not uncommon for things that challenge the status quo or are considered different to produce a negative reaction from the powers that be, a reaction that stems from a type of fear. It reminds me of Emerson’s quote in his essay “Self Reliance,” where he comments that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” It is this stubborn way of clinging to consistency that kept society from recognizing the value in Melville’s Moby Dick for a long time, but ironically, it is now what keeps it a part of the so-called canon of literature, and where I expect it will stay for many decades to come.