I want to be on a train somewhere, going to meet a lover, reading a paperback copy of Winterson and crying
September 1, 2010 by Steven W. Beattie · Leave a Comment
Jaime Woo had an idea to get a group of people with similar interests together over drinks and record their conversation. The project, called “Overheard,” is meant to capture unedited, unscripted ideas and passionate engagement around a specific topic. For his first podcast, he recorded novelist Stacey May Fowles, blogger and author Julie Wilson, and yr. humble correspondent talking about publishing, CanLit, the influence of new media, and Seth Godin’s disavowal of traditional books. The results are online, for anyone who is interested.
What no one has mentioned yet: UPDATED
August 25, 2010 by Steven W. Beattie · 49 Comments
The second half of Alex Good’s and my Afterword piece is up, this time focusing on writers we feel have been unjustly neglected:
We chose also to focus on underrated authors because it’s important to bear in mind that there is a huge wealth of worthwhile literature being written in this country. Unfortunately, the vast majority of it flies under the radar due to limited marketing budgets, the increasingly poisonous blockbuster mentality that is infecting publishing, and an overwhelming number of books being published. With such a deluge of material, consumers need guidance; where better to look than award winners and well-regarded books? But, the overinflation of certain reputations tends to crowd out others that are equally (if not infinitely more) worthy of attention.
With one exception, the authors on this list don’t have the same recognition factor as those on the previous list (and the one exception is notorious for all the wrong reasons). However, while they are heterogeneous in style, subject, and approach, they share in common a vivacity and willingness to push the boundaries of language and form. And they make reading a joy, not a chore, which is something sorely lacking from much of our fiction these days.
As with the first half, the criticisms came fast and furious. The authors are all old(er). Many of them were discovered and/or edited by John Metcalf. There are no French Canadians. Many of them have appeared in Canadian Notes and Queries, a publication with which both Good and I are associated (which would kind of indicate that we admire them already, but never mind).
All perfectly true, but what strikes me – as struck me with the (much more predictable) criticisms yesterday – is that none of these things have anything to do with the books themselves. No one is suggesting that Ray Smith or Diane Schoemperlen are not proficient writers. No, it’s that they’re too old. Or too white. Or not French Canadian. All of which completely misses the point.
Yes, some of the writers are of a certain age. It strikes me that the older and more prolific a good writer gets without achieving recognition, the more claim that person has to being underrated. Yes, many of the writers on the list have been edited by John Metcalf. This only goes to prove how essential he has been in discovering the finest literary talent this country has seen in the past 40 years. It never ceases to amaze me that people want to attack him for this. He should be praised, not vilified. (And, on the subject of proving André Alexis correct, which is another criticism that has been lobbed at us, I would point out that Alexis was writing about Metcalf the critic, not Metcalf the editor.)
But the bottom line is that when we set out to create this list, we really didn’t take into consideration anything other than the quality of a given author’s writing. Call us crazy. We did not set out to make a political statement, to keep or lose friends (although that may indeed be an unintended consequence of this little endeavour), or to boost egos. We set out to highlight what we authentically feel is some of the best and least heralded writing in this country. The fact that no one is commenting on the writing itself is indicative of how unfamiliar it actually is, which kind of proves our point.
UPDATE: Over at Sans Everything, Jeet Heer (one of the best literary critics this country has) makes a very good point:
I think the accolade “underrated” should more properly given to writers who have composed excellent stories and novels but whose names are unknown even to most readers of quality literature. I’m thinking here of K.D. Miller, Mike Barnes, Mary Borsky, Cynthia Flood, Ann Copeland, and Terry Griggs. They’ve all written first rate fiction, yet their names barely register in literary discussions. Any list of underrated Canadian writers should include them. If I were doing the list, I would have taken out writers like Smith and Glover, who are superb but get widely reviewed and discussed, to make room for K.D. Miller and company.
I (we?) stand by the inclusion of Smith and Glover, but nevertheless acknowledge the fact that the list of underrated Canadian writers could, conceivably, go on and on.
Salty Ink wanders into the fray
August 25, 2010 by Steven W. Beattie · Leave a Comment
Chad Pelley, the proprietor of the Salty Ink blog, has posted a thoughtful response to yesterday’s Afterword piece on overrated Canadian authors.
Sure, their article was harsh, and glossed over the fact that “good literature” is subjective — Ondaatje is brilliant to some and densely impenetrable to others, but those others should be able to say so, without repercussion, shouldn’t they? The point of all of this hoopla over one article is this: No one loses it over a critic calling an established writer subpar unless that writer is someone like Ondaatje. If his next book is crap his next book is crap, and a critic would say so about anyone else. If you grant an iconic writer immunity from criticism it is a disservice to what CanLit is, because what it is to me is a fresh, crisp, ever-evolving thing. But not if we are buying and awarding names over books. Not even when the author earned their reputation, because people in every profession know when to retire, and, a writer without a thick skin is in the wrong profession anyway. And, a writer who thinks s/he is great, too great for criticism, is done evolving and getting better. And is therefore done.
Amen, brother. Amen.
Burning bridges
August 24, 2010 by Steven W. Beattie · 5 Comments
If my Twitter feed is any indication, most of you will already have seen the list that Alex Good and I prepared for the National Post, in which we identify what we feel to be 10 overrated Canadian authors. This will be followed up tomorrow with a list of 10 underrated authors (which is much nicer, I promise).
In case you missed it:
Western literature has always resembled a Family Compact: those on the outside clamour for entry, and those on the inside guard their privilege assiduously. The flipside of the literary parlour game debating who’s in and who’s out involves making up gripers’ lists of who’s outside but should be in, and what undeserving insiders should be expelled. A recent Huffington Post essay by Anis Shivani outing America’s 15 most overrated authors is only the latest example of this popular pastime. Only a week earlier Gabriel Josipivici published a similar piece in the Guardian attacking as overinflated the reputations of Amis, Barnes, McEwan, and Rushdie. In the wake of all the fuss – both essays raised a storm of interest online – subjecting the Canadian scene to the same critical scrutiny became a point of national pride.
Always willing to rush in where angels fear to tread, we have accepted this challenge.
The list itself is up on The Afterword.
The responses so far have run the gamut from laudatory to condemnatory to those calling for our scalps. Although the practice of list-making is something of a foolish pastime, and this kind of thumbs-up/thumbs-down format eschews critical nuance, I do believe that the process is a valuable reconsideration of our literary landscape. Canada has a huge wealth of literary talent, and unfortunately that talent often goes wanting for the attention of readers because the blockbuster mentality and marketing behemoths powering a few anointed books crowd everything else out. If there is one message I’d like readers to take away from our lists, it’s this: there is infinitely more good writing in this country than bad. We restricted ourselves to 10 names for each list. If we wanted to, we could have made tomorrow’s list much, much longer.
There’s enough CG in this film to qualify it for Best Animated Feature
August 21, 2010 by Steven W. Beattie · Leave a Comment
The ironic thing is that this promo video is infinitely more entertaining than the movie itself.
R.I.P. Frank Kermode
August 18, 2010 by Steven W. Beattie · Leave a Comment
One of the greatest and most influential critics ever to grace the stage of English Literature, Frank Kermode has died at the age of 90. From the Guardian:
Prominent in literary criticism since the 1950s, Kermode held “virtually every endowed chair worth having in the British Isles,” according to his former colleague John Sutherland, from King Edward VII professor of English literature at Cambridge to Lord Northcliffe professor of modern English literature at University College London and professor of poetry at Harvard, along with honorary doctorates from universities around the world. He was knighted in 1991.
A renowned Shakespearean, publishing Shakespeare’s Language in 2001, Kermode’s books range from works on Spenser and Donne and the memoir Not Entitled to last year’s Concerning E.M. Forster.
Equally conversant with the work of Shakespeare and Wallace Stevens, Kermode’s 2006 book The Sense of an Ending has become an essential text for students of literary criticism, and literature itself.
It is the constant presence of more or less subtle varieties of apocalyptism that makes possible the repetitive claims for uniqueness and privilege in modernist theorising about the arts. So far as I can see these claims are unjustified. The price to be paid for old-style talk about “evolving sensibility” is new-style talk about “mutation.” It is only rarely that one can say there is nothing to worry about, but in this limited respect there appears not to be. Mr. Fiedler professes alarm at the prospect of being a stranded humanist, wandering among unreadable books in a totally new world. But when sensibility had evolved that far there will be no language and no concept of form, so no books. Its possessors will all be idiots. However, it will take more than jokes, dice, random shuffling, and smoking pot to achieve this, and in fact very few people seem to be trying. Neo-modernists have examined in many ways (many more than I have talked about), various implications of traditional modernism. As a consequence, we have, not unusually, some good things, many trivial things, many jokes, much nonsense. Among other things they enable us to see more clearly that certain aspects of earlier modernism really were so revolutionary that we ought not to expect – even with everything so speeded up – to have the pains and pleasures of another comparable movement quite so soon. And by exaggerating and drawing, the neo-modernist does help us to understand rather better what the Modern now is, and has been during this century.
– “Objects, Jokes, and Art,” 1966
The more things change
August 17, 2010 by Steven W. Beattie · 18 Comments
I can’t see that this novel will do well at all. It’s really too quaint. It’s not great enough or profound enough to transcend its own familiar weariness as a story of a gawky young farm boy’s struggle to distinguish between goodness and evil and his growth from that experience. Ross is either making a genuine effort to revive a played-out genre or he is more hopelessly out of touch with reality than I can believe. This has a strong whiff of the urban novel of the thirties about it. Its uncomplicated innocence and serious tone by way of James Farrell; its theatricality most evident in the characters of Charley and Mad by way of the gangster movies, its excessive naturalism (“we had pork chops and chocolate pie”); and its sentimental ending; all this is reminiscent of another time.
– Richard B. Wright, from a reader’s report on Whir of Gold by Sinclair Ross, dated May 1966
Wright was working for Macmillan when he prepared the reader’s report that contains the above excerpt. (It is reprinted in the new book “Collecting Stamps Would Have Been More Fun”: Canadian Publishing and the Correspondence of Sinclair Ross, 1933–1986.) What strikes me most upon reading it in 2010 is how au courant it all sounds. The phrases Wright uses in his description of Ross’s book – “too quaint”; “familiar weariness”; “uncomplicated innocence”; “serious tone”; “excessive naturalism”; “sentimental ending” – could easily be applied to any number of CanLit novels being published today (including, ironically, Wright’s own).
That rasping sound you hear is CanLit creaking in its own, dessicated skin.
Hidden wildlife
August 10, 2010 by Steven W. Beattie · Leave a Comment
Fauna. Alissa York; $29.95 cloth 978-0-307-35789-2, 376 pp., Random House Canada.
Predation is a recurring theme in the fiction of Alissa York. Her debut novel, 2002′s Mercy, opens with a cow being slaughtered, and contains scenes involving an owl attack in a bog and a pack of feral dogs. Her follow-up, the Scotiabank Giller Prize–shortlisted 2007 novel Effigy, has at its centre a woman named Dorrie, the fourth wife of the vicious Mormon horse breeder Erasmus Hammer, who dreams she is a crow, circling over scenes of violence and horror:
Being crow, I should make my way back to the killing field. I might have to haunt the margins for a time if the humans are still at work. On my last circuit I winged all the way back to the circled wagons. Between here and there, the dog man’s pack hunkered over the dead. They were stripping the bodies, revealing even the blue-white underskins of their feet. One yanked a glitter-string from a female’s wrist. One plucked shimmer-discs from an overskin he’d peeled away. The crow eye sparked and buzzed.
The impressionistic scene being described is that of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, an 1857 slaughter of a wagon train by a group of Utah Mormons and Paiute natives. Witnessing the grisly tableau from her crow’s-eye view, Dorrie imagines the relationship between the natural predation of the wild and the more vicious human kind:
See how the humans cache their kill, how they bow and scrape, swinging their heavy tools. Soon shallow patches have been scratched, and the dragging of bodies begins. Like weasels hoarding mice, they pile dead upon dead, dusting them with not enough earth to dissuade a fox kit. Some do even less, dumping corpses in gullies and concealing them with clumps of grass.
In her waking hours, Dorrie is much prized by her husband for her skill as a taxidermist; she takes the animals that Erasmus kills for sport and returns them to a lifelike state. At the novel’s opening, Erasmus brings Dorrie the bodies of a family of wolves he has killed. As the book progresses, a recurring leitmotif is the presence of a lone wolf scouring the Hammer homestead, trying to locate his lost pack.
The uneasy relationship between wildlife and the humans who prey on it reasserts itself in York’s latest novel, Fauna. The setting has shifted from 19th-century Utah to present-day Toronto, and in place of Erasmus there is Darius, a troubled young man who, calling himself “Coyote Cop,” blogs about what he perceives to be the scourge of the city’s coyote population. His blog posts, which become ever more violent and provocative, attract the attention of Stephen, an ex-soldier who suffered a heart virus while on a tour of duty in Afghanistan. Stephen’s medical condition cut short his military service; he now spends his days working at Howell Auto Wreckers, a wrecking yard in the Don Valley ravine that does double duty as an ad hoc animal sanctuary.
The sanctuary serves as the gathering point for the book’s cast of human misfits: in addition to Stephen and Guy, who owns the property, there is Edal, a federal wildlife officer currently on stress leave; Lily, a homeless girl who prowls the city at night rescuing birds that have flown into the lighted buildings of the downtown core; and Kate, a worker at the Annex Canine Rehabilitation Centre.
Each of the characters bears a wound or an absence of some sort. Some wounds, like Stephen’s defective heart, are physical; others are emotional; still others, a combination of the two. Lily cuts herself to mark the days she’s been on the streets: “Tonight being her fifty-seventh night of freedom, she’s partway into a group of five. The fifth cuts are the tricky ones, slashing down across the previous four. They require a deeper breath, an extra-steady hand.” Kate is trying to recover from the death of her lover, Lou-Lou, from “a massive brain aneurysm.” Since Lou-Lou’s death, Kate, who had never been able to confess the true nature of her relationship to her conservative parents, “had entered an underwater world,” where she “was walking, sitting, lying on the ocean floor.” Kate and Lily find solace with each other, impelled by their mutual love of dogs.
The character with the most shattering home life is Darius, whose troubled mother Faye dies after a fall in the bathtub, leaving him in the custody of his grandmother and his religious zealot grandfather, who insists that an extra place be set at the dinner table for the Son of God: “Every time Grandmother stood up to clear, she took Jesus’s full plate first, carrying it in both hands and tipping the untouched portion into the garbage pail. It hardly seemed fair, given that Darius had to eat every scrap he was served.” Darius’s grandfather’s spine is defective and he needs his wife to tie a board to his back in order to stand straight, something Darius witnesses one night when he gets up to go to the bathroom.
The grandfather’s peculiar affliction and his obsession with Jesus recall the Southern grotesques of Flannery O’Connor, a writer York acknowledges as an influence on her own work. But the grandfather – who keeps a spare belt on hand for the specific purpose of beating his wife and grandson – is one of the few O’Connoresque characters in Fauna; unlike York’s previous two novels, the element of Southern Gothicism is downplayed here. This is not to suggest that Fauna is by any stretch ordinary: on the contrary, with its band of forgotten misfits, its setting in the literal hidden valleys of Toronto, and sections that are narrated from the perspective of various animals (foxes, skunks, coyotes), Fauna is passing strange, and all the more bracing because of it. Although it invokes classics of animal lore – among them The Jungle Book, Watership Down, and Wild Animals I Have Known – it is startlingly original in its approach and its execution.
York’s writing, as always, is pristine, and over the course of three novels she has developed an admirable ability to juggle multiple perspectives and plotlines. However, the novel’s resolution is too neat to be entirely satisfying. The various storylines come to conclusions that are too tidy, and when the reason for Darius’s antipathy toward coyotes finally becomes apparent, the psychology involved is too simple to be entirely credible. Moreover, a number of characters – a stripper Stephen chances upon in the park one day, the restaurateur who gives Lily a job as a “dish pig” – appear in the novel fleetingly, only to vanish again without any payoff.
Still, Fauna represents a simultaneous extension of recurring themes and an intriguing departure for York. It is structurally ambitious and the author displays a tight control over her language and patterns of metaphor. The novel falters in its final stages, but that in no way diminishes the general enjoyment the story offers. York has written a truly odd book; it is a testament to her skill as a writer that it works as well as it does.
In which I get found out
August 9, 2010 by Steven W. Beattie · 7 Comments
The ever-vigilant Nathan Whitlock pointed out that my essay “Fuck Books,” which appeared in Canadian Notes & Queries more than a year ago, but has been given new life thanks to a mention in a Maclean’s blog post by Paul Wells, has been tapped for Geist magazine’s Findings section. The folks at Geist have lovingly combed through the essay, in which I complain about the, er, high-falutin’ stylistic shenanigans perpetrated by CanLit icons Michael Ondaatje and Anne Michaels, and have extracted a list of high-falutin’ stylistic shenanigans perpetrated by yr. humble correspondent in the course of making his argument.
This is actually pretty funny, and echoes a comment made by Britt Gullick in a post over at Pickle Me This. Now, Whitlock (who really should have trademarked the term “fuck books”) always advises me, “If two or more people tell you you’re drunk, it’s time to sit down.” And so, I must admit that there is a certain irony in using frankly elevated language to critique the elevated writing of others. All I would say in my defence is that nowhere in the essay do I suggest that I am against the deployment of big words. What I’m against is the inappropriate deployment of big words: their use in an ineffective context, a condescending manner, or as a veil to disguise the fact that a writer has little of substance to say.
I’d also point out that the phrase “the oatmeal of world literature” isn’t mine, it’s Stephen Marche’s. But it’s still a good line.
The deepest pessimism
August 3, 2010 by Steven W. Beattie · Leave a Comment
My review of Margaret Atwood’s latest novel, The Year of the Flood (just out in trade paper), is online at the Canadian Notes & Queries website. A taste:
In her introduction to the Penguin Classics edition of H.G. Wells’s 1896 novel The Island of Doctor Moreau, Atwood asserts that Wells referred to his tales as “scientific romances,” but only because the specific generic classification science fiction had yet to be coined. About Doctor Moreau, Atwood writes:
There are several interpretations of the term “science.” If it implies the known and the possible, then Wells’s scientific romances are by no means scientific: he paid little attention to such boundaries. As Jules Verne remarked with displeasure, “Il invente!” (“He makes it up!”). The “science” part of these tales is embedded instead in a world-view that derived from Wells’s study of Darwinian principles under Huxley, and has to do with the grand concern that engrossed him throughout his career: the nature of man. This too may account for his veering between extreme Utopianism (if man is the result of evolution, not of Divine creation, surely he can evolve yet further?) and the deepest pessimism (if man derived from the animals and is akin to them, rather than to the angels, surely he might slide back the way he came?). The Island of Doctor Moreau belongs to the debit side of the Wellsian account book.
Oryx and Crake and The Year of the Flood also belong to the debit side of the account book, in that they chronicle the latter days of a species – homo sapiens – that seems hell-bent on returning to a pre-evolutionary state along a road that is ironically paved by our own ingenuity: we are involved in the wholesale pursuit of the very technologies that will serve as the instruments of our destruction. Although The Year of the Flood is ultimately a more hopeful book than its predecessor, there is nevertheless a strain of “the deepest pessimism” running through it.