If I am honest, I would have to say that I was not astonished to read an item in the SMH today, that argues for the inclusion of Taylor Swift's lyrics in courses alongside such greats as Shakespeare, Aristotle and other persons of the literary canon. To quote a paragraph from the article,

'The study of Swift's great works, alongside those of Shakespeare and Aristotle, is becoming a fixture of courses at Australia's top universities, as academics challenge entrenched ideas about what constitutes worthy art.'

I don't have any problems challenging such ideas myself, but I would likely use far worthier, more talented wordsmiths that Swift to do so. It's apples and oranges really. Swift writes pop lyrics - repetitive, cliched, often banal - which is absolutely fine as she is a pop musician. That is her world and she does very well at it. More power to Miss Swift.

But Sydney University, apparently, is getting its students to compare The Bard's sonnet with Tay Tay's output in the hope of, what? Surely the latter suffers terribly by comparison with one of the best writers in the language. I assume that this is a serious project and that no satire is intended, so what can we make of it? Shameless band-waggoning? A victory for theory over reality? Loss of marbles? Who is to say?

There is a loss of faith in the West, not just religious, but also in the way the West was built and by whom. There are shameful episodes and glaring omissions, of course. They can, in part, be made up for and supplemented. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that Pop, delightful as it can be, is anything other than Pop.