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.
interesting list; but why are you angry that you are presenting an opinion & getting grief for it? such is the result of sticking yr neck out; there are always going to be those who want to chop it off; suck it up, lad;
you made a list; if you think it worthy, wouldn’t anyone who offers opinions (whether polite or impolite feedback) be offering up exactly the kind of debate you were hoping might happen?
i would say, though, honestly, that if you are going to single out one poet in yr “not” list, why not consider one for yr “good” list? for a sense of balance; & there is something, you would have to admit, about most if not all being edited or otherwise picked by Metcalf; it gives the appearance of stylistic sameness, stylistic bias (not that Coady writes like Schomperlen, but still);
there are a couple i fully agree with, including Schomperlen; & then Ken Sparling, Margaret Christakos, & others; don’t be mad, lad; you are deliberately talking about works that haven’t been discussed, & now you’re mad that no-one is discussing them?
yer pal,
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.
Absolute bullshit. I commented on the writing, itself, of your favourite whipping boy yesterday. In a public blog post, that I linked on my Twitter, that you can read (though if you choose not to, that’s fine). On Twitter today I commented on the way I read Smith and Glover.
I mean, maybe my rebuttal doesn’t mean much because I’m not part of the establishment, & no one pays me for what I write. Maybe when you say “no one” you mean “no one that matters.” Because if I talked about the writing, itself, right where you can see it, there must have been at least a few others. Not that they matter.
*sigh* Of course you meant that no one is talking about the writing on today’s list. Of course.
Not yesterday’s. Because everyone already talks about that writing. Fuckit; mea culpa.
I’ve commented (on Twitter anyway) specifically on the writing of Gaston and Coady today. I like the list because yes I agree especially with Gaston, whose books I buy automatically like I do Alice Munro’s, but I like it because of the endorsement of writers’ work that is unfamiliar to me (the point as you say of your list). And I’m an avid reader. And I would think people defending and debating (the work preferably) is a healthy thing. So bravo, I say, on both lists. Not everyone is going to agree on any set of ten authors.
And why not (if one hasn’t actually read the work of authors on your list or one complains about some other consideration) reply by nominating another author he or she feels neglected?
While this is a great point and absolutely more people should be dissecting and debating the writing of these authors, there’s two issues that I think need to be considered:
Your lists were of authors, not of books or samples of writing. To create a list defined by the people on it only encourages rebuttals to focus on the people on the list and not on the work they created. Whether this is fair is up for debate.
Can you separate a piece work from its author and cultural context and still give it an authentic critique? Too many things influence pieces of writing and how readers and critics consume it and these things will (and should) be considered when creating and critiquing such lists. An author’s (and a critic’s) gender, age, socioeconomic status, life experience, past critical reception, blah, blah, blah, informs how a work is created and how people approach that work. The fact that such lists are made and can be filled with old white guys (or young French Canadian girls) says just as much about the surrounding cultural landscape as it does about the list itself and that’s valuable stuff.
(I did try to fit this into 140 characters and failed.)
Ian & Panic: Didn’t see either of your comments on Twitter. My apologies.
rob: Look at the underrated list again.
Damn. Just lost a long comment.
The gist of it was:
I don’t really care about the Metcalf connection, etc., but wanted to contextualize my age comments on Bookninja. I don’t think that in fact many of those writers are under-rated. Eric Ormsby, for instance, is widely recognized as a master. Sure, the general public doesn’t know who he is, but for that matter the general public doesn’t know who Seamus Heaney is, either. The poetry reading public does and that’s where the “rating” happens. Especially over long careers. I think a few others on your list have similar paths. I suppose it all depends on where you set the bar for recognition/success. There were people on the over-rated list too who had no real wider public profile (Erin Moure, for instance), so what makes them over-rated and these under-rated?
Everyone’s freaking out because we were all waiting with PreConceived Notions of what such a list should include, and I guarantee that no two PCNs are alike. So you’re bound to get blow-back. I, for instance, thought you’d surely highlight the stellar careers of some younger people who haven’t had high-levels of recognition even within their field yet, much less the general public. But it’s your list.
For what it’s worth, I applaud you for doing this. It’s a brave thing to do, and a valid exercise, whether or not anyone agrees. I’d rather see a list like this that I don’t agree with than no list at all.
A good list Steven. Perhaps you and I have different definitions of the word “underrated”, but a good list. And I’m all for it being older authors. Most young writers aren’t underrated or overrated but rather not really rated at all, they haven’t stuck around long enough to acquire an unjust reputation.
As for the anger….surely the point of a project this ostentatious and essentialist is to make people angry, isn’t it? I see your surprise at the nature of the anger, that’s fine. But the degree of it can’t be at all surprising is it, you said on your own twitter before list #1 came out, something like “bracing for the backlash…” or something. Anger was always an intended result, wasn’t it?
I suspect your Twitter feed has been a bit overwhelming the past couple days.
All valid points. Thanks, everyone.
“Eric Ormsby, for instance, is widely recognized as a master. Sure, the general public doesn’t know who he is, but for that matter the general public doesn’t know who Seamus Heaney is, either. The poetry reading public does and that’s where the “rating” happens. Especially over long careers. I think a few others on your list have similar paths. I suppose it all depends on where you set the bar for recognition/success. There were people on the over-rated list too who had no real wider public profile (Erin Moure, for instance), so what makes them over-rated and these under-rated?”
As noted in the list, Moure has been nominated for the GG five times (won once), won the AM Klein prize twice, and been shortlisted for the Griffin. Compare Ormsby’s history with these leading awards. This is obviously one place “where the ‘rating’ happens.” Ormsby also rarely gets reviewed. Even Time’s Covenant, his collected poems (which is usually a signal event in any poet’s career) was almost totally ignored. As for wider public profile, this is harder to evaluate but a Google search turns up three times as many hits for Moure as for Ormsby (22,000 to 7,300).
I don’t think anyone is villifying anyone. I have nothing against Metcalf, or any of the writers, or you.
Call me naive, Steven, but I do hope for a bit of distance between such lists and one’s immediate peers. As a national reviewer I would expect to see a list that took into account the actual national scene in all of its complexness. Isn’t this part of what you’re reacting to? A kind of network of persistant back scratching? Is how one eradicates such small circles simply by replacing them? I thought we wanted to move beyond that.
As I said yesterday, I appreciate your willingness to take a bite out of things. I hope you can be equally willing to face the response.
As for the texts, it’s curious isn’t it. What way has this entire project been about setting up the writing for consideration and/or reconsideration? Worth thinking about. And of course, that may happen in the coming weeks.
Furthermore (as a footnote).
Erin Moure receives a full column in my edition of the Concise Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature.
Eric Ormsby does not have an entry.
Having just read the autobiography of novelist of Barbara Pym, whose career was made in 1977 when David Cecil and Philip Larkin both included her as one of the most underrated writers of the 20th century (she’d been out of print for sixteen years by that point), I see what an powerful statement is made by the inclusion of older writers on your list.
That said, you overrated list would have been much more interesting (and effective) had it included some more emerging writers.
I like the excercise, Steven, it opens conversation. I would have liked to see more specific books on the underrated list so we could link right away to works we didn’t know about. Thanks for sticking your neck out.
So in the NP overrated list you two say this: “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 list of overrated authors and one of underrated authors must mean there’s a line of authors who you feel are well/rightly rated, no? So which insiders do you feel belong inside and why? Going by what I’ve read here in the past, such a list would include Munro, Moore and Atwood, right?
Actually, Alexis later included you and Alex (and me) into Metcalf’s squadron of flying monkeys, so I think noting that 8/10 of your authors are Metcalf-affiliated is a valid point. It speaks to a possible narrowness of view, which is not at all a deal-breaker (I’m a narrow-view man myself, most of the time), but adds an asterisk to the list, I think. And I think it only serves to overrate Metcalf’s impact as an editor – he’s discovered a whole lot of writers, but he has always worked within a very particular stream of writing, and my guess is that most of the genuinely underrated (as opposed to “talented, but not famous”) writers are outside of that stream. That a group of talented writers creating interesting works of realistic fiction are not setting the world on fire is not exactly a surprise, no?
Also, the both lists were less about the writing or the books than about whether said writing and books justified their over/underexposure. In other words, it was as much about their public reception and careers as about their actual writing.
(As to whether there was enough of this or that on the list, I agree that’s not really relevant – it’s your list, you do with it what you wish.)
Having said all that, I still think the whole thing was well worth doing, and my hat is still off to both of you.
“Erin Moure receives a full column in my edition of the Concise Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature.
Eric Ormsby does not have an entry.”
Does it cloud matters more to note that Eric Ormsby is anthologized in _The Norton Anthology of Poetry_ but that Erin Moure is not? (There are not many Canadian in there.)
Be as angry as you like – had you actually put a little more thought into either of these lists and selected criteria that were fair: writers at the beginning, middle or end of their careers; writers of a certain age; writers with at least three novels published; mastery of both poetry and prose; mastery of the short story form as well as the novel – ANYTHING that might actually serve as criteria that could be perceived as fair – these lists might mean something.
I read your previous ‘Fuck Books’ diatribe on Canadian Notes & Queries in which you used two very different passages from Anne Michaels and Michael Ondaatje and suggested they were equally overblown as writers (the passages were startlingly different) and forbore to comment on that because it was just too absurd. But your opinions – informed solely, it seems, by extensive reading rather than actual critical standards – are getting waaaaay too much play in way too many forums these days, given that judging writing is – and will always be – subjective, and that you really and truly are venting about your pet peeves. If you don’t like an author, recuse yourself and get someone who does to review their latest book so people who do like Ondaatje or Michaels will be able to judge – based on other works they’ve read by those authors – whether they want to read their latest and how new works stack up against previous ones.
Personally I don’t care which authors you like or dislike – I’m a big girl and I majored in English, I’m pretty confident of being able to determine what’s good or bad writing – and of being able to justify my choices with textual backup – on my own without your ‘help.’ The childish vehemence with which you express your opinions, however, and your blatant prejudices perturb me greatly. And frankly, I would have preferred it if you’d tackled a REAL sacred cow in the over-rated list – someone like Alice Munro, who’s made a very successful career out of such an incredibly narrow range of themes and techniques I’ll no longer read her. And that doesn’t mean I don’t think Lives of Girls and Women or Dance of the Happy Shades are brilliant works. It means I want to see an author GROW by taking chances, varying style, tackling different subject matter, over the course of a long career. That’s a bias on my part, and one I always disclose when reviewing.
As for your dislike of authors who incorporate a geography of place into their work – really – grow up. It’s not just Canadian authors who do that and if it’s something you really can’t stand, you’ll need to recuse yourself from reviewing authors who do and stick to reviewing books by writers who choose to write about Everyman/woman.
So let’s just say I won’t be taking ‘guidance’ from you on what to read or what to like. And what an incredibly patronizing thing for you to have said. But then you’re not the first Canadian male critic to try to claim the ‘enfant terrible’ ground. And I’m thinking you won’t be the last either.
@Matt C
That’s interesting, but I would argue that there’s a difference between being left out of a companion (which is a reference work you should really expect to be included in), and left out of an anthology (which is the judgment call of the editors). Just looking at what I have on my desk at the moment, the Oxford Anthology of Canadian Literature in English, I see Moure is included and Ormsby is not. But I don’t think that can be taken as objective evidence of much.
@Nathan
Point taken, as long as we remember that the label “Metcalf affiliated” is a pretty broad designation. We could probably play one or two degrees of separation with a lot of writers in the small pond that is Canadian publishing. As you note, both of us have been tarred as slavish Metcalf acolytes. Yet in fact we’ve both been publicly critical of him and as far as I know neither of us has ever even met the guy.
yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeooooow; i <3 ruth seeley; brilliant!
On the accusation that the list is too Metcalf-affiliated, I’ll note that JM has edited well over 100 books. If you add up those books and also all the writers he’s included in the many anthologies he’s edited (including several years of the Best Canadian Stories series) then you have probably 200 plus writers that can be called Metcalf-affiliated. So it’s hard to imagine a list of Canadian writers, especially if it is given over to “literary” or “writerly” type writers, that isn’t in some ways Metcalf-affiliated.
Ruth,
“you used two very different passages from Anne Michaels and Michael Ondaatje and suggested they were equally overblown as writers (the passages were startlingly different)”
There’s more than one way to be overblown.
“judging writing is – and will always be – subjective”
And your point is…? To dismiss or deride one opinion on the basis that it is is subjective is to do so to all opinions, everywhere, always. Including your own, by the by. You either see value in discussion around opinion, or you don’t. (This goes back to your discussion of “fairness”. Fair according to whom? By what standards? All subjective, and by your reasoning here, every bit as invalid as what you’re railing against.)
“The childish vehemence with which you express your opinions, however, and your blatant prejudices perturb me greatly.”
Citations, please. I don’t see any indications of childishness, and you haven’t provided any. After all, you’re “able to justify [your] choices with textual backup”, right? If you’re going to throw around words like “childish” and “blatant prejudices”, that’s maybe a skill you ought to exercise at the same time. Them’s fightin’ words, after all.
“As for your dislike of authors who incorporate a geography of place into their work – really – grow up.”
I don’t recall that actually being the point Beattie and Good were making. I believe the point was that CanLit orthodoxy rides that particular pony until it’s skeletal, quite often at the expense of “an author GROW[ing] by taking chances, varying style, tackling different subject matter”.
“If you don’t like an author, recuse yourself and get someone who does to review their latest book”
This is utter horseshit. Assigning a review specifically based upon how much a critic does or does not enjoy the previous work of an author is horribly unethical. You’re suggesting that Beattie promote a critical hand-holding (or has in the past promoted a critical drubbing). Reviewers should be assigned based on whether or not the critic can give a reasoned assessment of a book (which I think can and should include a familiarity with the work, not necessarily a “love”). If you’re a “big girl” (as you say), maybe it’s time to leave the helmet and crash pads at home.
Also: are you seriously using “childish vehemence” unironically after writing that? I mean, seriously?
Publishing strong opinions is just fine, in other words, as long as they’re not strong, they’re not opinions, and you don’t publish them.
@August Here are some citations: http://www.notesandqueries.ca/fuck-books/ and http://natpo.st/9XQPWr, the two articles in question. They’re clever, they’re witty, they’re provocative – I don’t believe they are at all fair, and part of my point is: Steven’s gone on record already as being not-a-fan of either Michaels or Ondaatje. Which is fine. To use ever-widening platforms to say the same thing: not fine in my book. Use of the word ‘slop’ alone in the NP over-rated article is really all the textual proof I feel I need to provide.
When you’re reviewing for a publication, I believe you need to take into account (nominally, anyway) whether readers of that publication will like the book or not, based on what you know of the demographic provided by the advertising profile. That’s what I did when I used to review books for The Financial Post in the early 80s. You also need to take into account whether those who loved In the Skin of a Lion will also like Anil’s Ghost. Or not. When assigning a review of an author who IS loved by many, not to take into account the reviewer’s previous and oft-stated negative bias would be – I’m trying to think of a kinder, gentler word than idiotic but am failing at the moment. Objectivity’s always the goal in any form of journalism or criticism; it’s an impossible goal, but I’d rather see someone with a positive bias towards the author’s work evaluate a later work than someone with a negative bias.
I’ve already apologized to Steven for using the phrase ‘grow up’ and he most graciously said no apology was required, but I’m sure he appreciates your taking up the cudgels for him.
There’s CanLit orthodoxy? Are you a conspiracy theorist?
Ruth: You need not apologize for strongly voicing an opinion. Ever.
I would say in my defence that the National Post piece(s) are not, and were never meant to be, reviews. They were short, sharp shots. My review writing is (I hope) much less provocative and more considered.
Well, I’m no Stephen Henighan…
I don’t generally care about positive or negative bias if it’s mild, but I see positive bias go astray far more often than negative bias (see anything Sam Tanenhaus has ever written about Updike, for example, especially the fawning drivel that was the review of his final novel).
Wow. Since when are opinions so unacceptable? Steven W. Beattie is not God, Michael Ondaatje is not God, and no one is going to write a book that everyone likes. The important thing is that it remains okay for people to say what they want, despite who they are saying it about, because that is what keeps literature diverse. It is healthy that big-named authors be as susceptible to slander as lesser known or emerging authors, and it is a good sign no one can agree who the most under-rated authors are and how to define that: because what a lame and stagnant thing CanLit would be if that we could all agree here. There shouldn’t be a “How dare he” attitude about this. I like David Adams Richards, and yet I don’t want to hurl a stone at Beattie for what he said about him. No one is right or wrong here. If we all agree “good literature is subjective,” than what we’re saying is ditto with opinion.
George, I suggest you ask Dan Wells how many copies of Time’s Covenant have been purchased. Then ask Laura Repas what sales an Erin Moure release can expect. The rating disparity is huge, and not just in terms of award nominations. (It’s worth noting that the Norton is a US-published antho and that Ormsby is from the US; his presence in that book is a nil factor in his Canadian rating). Personally, I think the Moure entry was one of the weakest in the over-rated list. I do think she’s over-rated (i.e. not nearly as good as we’re told she is and not nearly as good as her most talented peers), but I often find her writing interesting and, indeed, graceful. I have a sneaking suspicion that Steven and Alex have read very few of her books. Correct me if I’m wrong, Steven.
Damnit Steven I should just have commented on the Notes and Queries piece in the first place. To be brutally honest I was trying to be politically correct by not doing so since I do PR for authors (some Canadian, some not) and didn’t want to antagonize you given your position at Q&Q. Now that I’m learning you can take it as well as dish it out I regret my initial attempt at political/bidness correctness.
@August Stephen Henighan is a conspiracy theorist? I…that wasn’t obvious to me from the Walrus piece on Mozambique arts and culture – I’m obviously missing something.
I must confess I really didn’t like the tone of the ‘overrated’ list, and I think it would have been much more interesting to read some more diverse opinions (rather than, dare I say, the viewpoints of just two middle-aged men), but I am truly enjoying all of the follow-up conversations that are happening online, and it’s getting me thinking about Canadian books and authors, so for that I thank you, Steven.
My two cents: http://sanseverything.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/underrated-overrated-in-canlit/
Amidst all this childish vehemence, I note a remarkable paucity of alternative lists.
It’s interesting that the underrated list has provoked more howls of protest than the overrated list. If I didn’t know better, I’d suggest that some of that howling is coming from people who feel excluded.
really, August S? we complain because we feel left out? hardly; what a lovely way to dismiss whatever points folk are attempting to make; we’re jealous; ugh,
The fact that rob mclennan didn’t know that Eric Ormsby is a poet might prove enough answer to George’s bit on his well-recognized status. Though George should really know better any way. Though he did author the one review Time’s Covenant did get, an omnibus in the Globe: perhaps he assumed erroneously it was reviewed elsewhere.
Metcalf has edited closer to 175 books over 40 years, not including dozens of anthologies and a range of other textbooks. Safe to say there are few editors – especially among those working with smaller presses – who have edited half as many. Some of the other writers who could be considered Metcalf-affiliated include Rohinton Mistry, Margaret Atwood, Alice Munro, Lisa Moore, and many others (at least if you include their inclusion in Metcalf-edited books.) His “influence” therefore is indeed quite wide, probably well beyond 200 writers. Nor is his aesthetic vision narrow; certainly it is far less so than the average editor at either a small or large house. Perhaps it is time to acknowledge this contribution, to celebrate it, and not to cynically denigrate it. Though, of course, I would say that.
Truth be told, as good as Metcalf is, as many writers as he’s discovered, you would be hard pressed to find even one who has won major national awards or made the bestseller lists, with the exception last year of Annabel Lyon. Adderson, Smith, Smith, Heighton, Henighan, Barnes, English, Rosenblum, Jones, Blaise – though to be fair he had already established himself as a writer before coming into contact with Metcalf – Griggs, Rooke, Schoemperlen, Levine, Robertson, miller, Pyper, Glennon, Winter, and Winter … one could go on and on. Any one of these writers could be listed as among the more underappreciated. There’s also a range of styles being employed by these writers – often by single writers – a range of subjects … To try and treat it as some sort of narrow niche of “aesthetic” writing is not only unfair, it is plainly stupid, and it says far more about the biases of his critics than anything else. Especially when sales indicate that almost anyone commenting likely has not read a bloody one of them. Which is sort of the point of this whole exercise, isn’t it? To show that there’s a rich and varied literature out there well beyond the usual stuff celebrated in exchange for ads at our fair national newspapers. And to challenge us – no one is dictating anything – to move out of our comfort zones and own biases and try a couple of these writers on for size. Where is the harm in that?
rob: I think you mean “Andrew S” (and I actually agree with you; I hate the ‘jealousy’ argument).
Didn’t Schoemperlen win a GG? (She’s one of the few on the underrated list I’ve actually read, and I absolutely adore her work.)
Ruth: you should read “When Words Deny the World”.
Rob, or should I say, “rob,” the comment you’re responding to was from Andrew S, not August S, so let’s not be putting words in August’s mouth.
In fact, I said that “some of the howling” seems to be coming from people who feel excluded, not that everyone who objects just feels left out. These are two different propositions, and the latter is obviously wrong.
It’s interesting that you chose to take it personally.
Now, now, August. I didn’t make an argument; I made a snide remark.
“I like David Adams Richards, and yet I don’t want to hurl a stone at Beattie for what he said about him. No one is right or wrong here.”
I do think the David Adams Richards entry was rather harsh in the sense that it summed up all his writing with one characterization. (“The result has been a strident series of crude, reactionary harangues on the evils of modern, secular civilization. Degenerate city-dwellers, slanderous hypocrites, and anyone with a university education are lined up against God’s people – honest, stalwart, hard-working folk who are made to suffer the persecutions of the saints. “)
I don’t want to say this doesn’t apply to his later work; I have no opinion on that. However, I read a couple of early books by him (THE COMING OF WINTER and another whose title I’m not sure of (possibly BLOOD TIES) but whose contents I still remember — and it wasn’t the country folk who were saintly). His body of work includes some good books.
Doesn’t the fact that Rob didn’t know Ormsby was a poet speak to… Oh, nevermind…
Fair enough, Finn. But in the list Richards was specifically addressed as a writer who has done some good work in the past but is now on a long downhill slide.
So does Ondaatje’s.
George; i admit i missed that Ormsby was on the list; should i mention we buried my mother the same day & my attention hasnt been this week what it should have been? dont dismiss everything else i said because of one oversight;
apologies August S; Andrew S, i wasnt taking that comment personally; i just think to negate any argument for the sake of jealousy holds no water; not a single person here has argued to be on any of the “overlooked lists,” including myself; so why would you suggest that? & why would you say im taking it personally?
the best way to hold one’s own, ive noticed, against someone elses argument is to dismiss it entirely; its what mr beattie was bemoaning originally; i said a few things, & then responded to a few things, & now you are managing to dismiss someone elses arguments for the sake of a single thread you make presumptions upon; i dont care about these lists, as far as my own writing goes; i dont think most writers with a couple of books published would feel so little about their own production that these lists would be required to hold them up; i know what i do, & dont require a list to keep me going; Andrew S, if you knew anything about me at all, you would know that much about me;
i wont bother replying to any of this again; obviously anything said here with any thought will be dismissed by others without any reasonable consideration; i have better to do than open myself up for further snide remarks,
Hey Ruth Seeley, Have you read much later/recent Alice Munro? Perhaps you have and your opinion stands, but I’m asking because I once held the same. I’d read Who Do You Think You Are and Lives of Girls of Women, and thought I knew all of Munro’s one trick. And then I read her collected stories Alice Munro’s Best, the first couple of stories just what I’d expected, and then she began to blow apart all of my expectations of what short stories were and what they could do. Of just what an Alice Munro story was.
I’m now converted to the Munro-devoted, and her latest collection only confirmed that. I hope that if you’re judging her with the narrow view that I once had that you’ll give her another chance.
Rob, I could name several people who have made snide remarks about who was included that seemed clearly motivated by jealousy. But if I was inclined to start that kind of pissing match, I would have named names from the get-go. You did choose to take it personally, for whatever reason, in that you assumed I was referring to you. Your assumptions aren’t really my problem.
@Kerry Clare I read every one of Munro’s collections up to 2001′s Hateship, Friendship, Courtship, Loveship, Marriage (that was the one that included stories set in Jakarta, I believe?) and didn’t see any net new in that collection. And I just decided I’d spent enough time with her. I’m trying to be a little more selective in my reading because, you know, my eyes are wearing out and the sedentary lifestyle is starting to get to me! I get through three books a week most weeks. But please, if you’ve got specific story recommendations, I’m willing to read more individual Munro stories (just not the whole collection). P.S. I love retelling the story “How I Met My Husband” from LoG&W.
Feel free to email me: ruthseeley[at]gmail.com. 
i didnt take any of it personally, Andrew S.; not a speck; but you keep telling me i do;
Lowercase just looks really sensitive and fragile, Rob.