Canada Reads 2009: Day 5

Welcome back ladies and gents, for the last episode and our thrilling conclusion…

We start the show with yesterday’s vote, which went as follows:

NC: Fruit
AW: The Outlander
SS: Fruit
JSL: The Outlander
AL: The Outlander

Once again, NC gives mad props to JSL for being a stellar advocate, and she admits she didn’t think she would get this far.

Next, Jian the two last advocates are given a chance to make a last pitch for their books  and it was a delight to hear the competitions two most eloquent contenders go head to head. JSL hits all her major points thus far, but adding that Francis has a genius for dialogue, and that nobody writes contemporary Canada like Brian Francis. Avi Lewis also uses his old arguments, and busts out some alliteration calling BofN “a truly titanic task,”as well as “searingly emotional.”

Jian then goes back to the old question of small scale versus large scale, asking if Fruit has the same universal resonance and appeal. SS weighs in with her traditional anti-Fruit stance, calling it myopic and “not welcoming enough,” but JSL argues for the genius required to achieve so much on a small canvas. AW also rises to the defense of Fruit‘s universality, saying “you don’t have to be a 13-year-old to feel insecure in your body.” Avi supports JSL’s argument, but takes it a step further, saying that working on a epic, universal story and reducing it to something manageable is also an impressive feat.

Jian raises the question about whether BofN‘s “hollywood ending” limits its efficacy, but AW denies it, saying that you don’t learn less of a lesson, or end up less affected by it. I see her point, unless “hollywood ending” also implies implausibility. In which case, it can, as JSL says “jolt you out of a fictional world” and undermine the book as a whole. AL does make an excllent point though, saying that huge massacres and wars DO defy human imagination, and should seem surreal. When I read Orbinski’s An Imperfect Offering or even as I watched the re-creation of Passchendaele in Gross’ epic, I DID wonder how anyone could have survived it.

Jian then brings up the Peter Paddington vs. Goliath scenario (this seems a bit like one of Peter’s Bedtime Movies – except Peter might be Brooke Shields, and Goliath would be wearing a red speedo). Once again this debate is somewhat flat, since people just answer accordingly for their book.

In the end, AL argues that after BofN we end up “enriched and enlightened about slavery and humanity.” AL is really maximizing what his book has to offer – namely knowledge (learning, whatever), alongside the knowledge of human nature that reading should provide. So in this case (forgive my oversimplification), if both books tell us about humanity, it becomes a battle of 1980s Sarnia vs. the slave trade, which unless they’re going to have a dance off, could be a hard fight to win.

And so it was, with the final vote demonstrating that Canadians don’t like an underdog THAT much:

AL: Fruit
JSL: BofN
SS: Fruit
AW: Fruit
NC: Fruit
AL says he is humbled by his victory, and claims it was an unfair fight (due to the reason I just mentioned), but that is the nature of the beast. CR isn’t explicitly the hist-fic showdown (though given the amount of hist-fic we produce, it could be).

JSL is “pleased as hell” and gives a major shout out to her author, Brian Francis. She’s no fool, and knew taking on BofN would be a major undertaking, but she says she is just pleased managed to take Fruit this far. That’s certainly no small feat, and I would give JSL the award for best champion.

Disagree with the results? Don’t forget you can still vote in the Viewer’s Choice poll, and award Miss Congeniality to someone else.

And the final post-confessional (exclusively with the last two panelists standing):

• AL seems surprised yet again that her vote had an impact
• JSL reveals her very clever voting strategy (voting for whatever people seemed most likely to vote against), crediting it to her mother, because “she’s a very sneaky lady”
• JSL expresses some fears about burning bridges in the tiny Canadian literary community

The whole event finishes off with Avi asking “Can we start again?”And at the risk of sounding sappy, I concur, and I already can’t wait for next year. Big kudos to the CBC for doing a great job, and I will say the online content (and its management) is a standard most organizations should strive for. Also, many thanks to all the people who have stopped by the KIRBC to join in the CR fun – especially Kerry, Charlotte Ashley, and Melanie, whose insightful comments I always looked forward to. Congrats to Melanie as well for running the Canada Reads Challenge over at Roughin’ It in the Books, which hopefully will become a yearly tradition!

The CBC’s also continuing their online coverage with an Online Book Club, which will have live chats in addition to the forum discussion. It will also have “featured” readers, which just seems to be a CBC-sponsored facebook profile for a reader, but we are vain creatures. I think the whole CBC Book Club is just to allow people who are only going to read the winner to have access to some of the discussion and resources that were available during the competition. But a note to all bandwagon jumpers: be sure to read the rest too! (Read them all already? Why not take on previous winners? Or even more ambitiously, previous nominees?) This has been my first year really participating in CR (being a relatively new convert to talk radio), and I can say that every book I read and discussion I read, listened to and participated in was enjoyable, enlightening, and made me proud of Canada”s formidable writers and readers.

Previous CR Winners (of which I’ve only read the last three):

In the Skin of a Lion, by Michael Ondaatje
Next Episode, by Hubert Aquin
The Last Crossing, by Guy Vanderhaeghe
Rockbound, by Frank Parker Day
A Complicated Kindness, by Miriam Toews
Lullabies for Little Criminals, by Heather O’Neill
King Leary, by Paul Quarrington

Read Full Post »

Canada Reads 2009: Day 4

We’ve reached Day 4, and the competition’s getting tough and demonstrating that the reality-tv principle makes for as unpredictable entertainment as ever. Once again, the panelists have 30 seconds to summarize their books, which I won’t summarize, because most people who are coming here already know the books.

So on to the vote!

JSL: The Outlander
NC: Fat Woman
AW: The Outlander
SS: Fruit
AL: Fat Woman (worried that Fruit was getting beaten up unfairly)

A TIE! Now this is exciting times. And the tie-breaker falls to the rejected panelist, SS, who (surprisingly, I thought) picked Fat Woman! AW accuses AL of being “two-faced,” in saying he supported Fat Woman,  but it seems that he just didn’t want to admit that he was voting against a panelist’s book to their face.

Fat Woman is accused of failing in novelistic terms, though these are perhaps the most vague terms of all.  Is the novel not the most fluid and flexible of formats? Between the modernists and the post-modernists I think it’s pretty safe to say that all the “novelistic” rules have been broken, and the novel endures. Furthermore, I would liken Fat Woman to Virginia Woolf’s The Waves, which certainly took (and still takes) its fair share of criticism, but certainly isn’t considered a failure. I’m kind of surprised that JSL didn’t jump in on this one, it seems that the lone writer should prevent the others from getting away with comments like this one.

Fat Woman is ultimately dismissed with a final kick when it’s down, with SS saying it reminds her of “many scenes of a sitcom.” Ouch.

AW is crushed to see her book go, especially when it was a bit of a surprise. It sounds like she might be crying, but the video footage isn’t up yet, so I can’t confirm. One nice thing about all of this is that these panelists care so much – it’s quite the testament to the power of books.

After the vote, the conversation completely shifts to what people learned from books, with AL picking Francis’ portrait of Sarnia, “a lovable by soul-destroying town,” and Anne-Marie Withenshaw praising the Book of Negroes for expanding her knowledge of slavery. This leads to a Heritage Minute from AL about slavery in Nova Scotia, though no real debate ensues about the value of gaining knowledge (aside from about human nature) from a book.

Jian then encourages the panelists to out whichever book they felt OBLIGATED to finish, and almost-eliminated Outlander takes some hard hits here. AW says “OK, I get it. She’s running. She’s fleeing. Who is she?” She accuses The Outlander of a sagging middle, which is echoed by AL (and deemed the most fair criticism of The Outlander so far by the only marginally less influential JK). JSL, on the other hand, feels enslaved by BofN larger-than-life narrative. SS jumps goes back to her old whipping boy, Peter Paddington, saying “This person is so annoying!” – a Paddington-esque assessment that some have made of her in this competition. It is left to NC to stick up for his book, but if you ask me, the fact that NC finished it is a great indication of Adamson’s storytelling.

Never one to let a book get an easy ride, Jian ressurects the issue of Fruit being a potentially “slight” book once again. Citing the success of Milk and the controversy over Proposition 8, Jian points out that Fruit is a timely book, and asks about the importance of social relevance to a piece of literature. JSL says that what makes the book shine for her is not the issues, but the character, notably Peter’s ability to meet adversity with humour. She asks, “When we don’t meet things with humour, what do we have left?” AL, whose book also deals with an important social issue, says that recommending a book because of its social platform is the “kiss of death,” and he’s afraid of making a book seem too granola.

Before the next vote, Jian gives the panelists a chance to say one thing that the others should keep in mind while voting.

NC goes back to The Outlander being a page-turner (a curious focus when this very element was just widely contested by the other panelists), perfect for “the great unwashed” – of which he appears to be the chosen representative. (For comments on Outlander as a mass-market sell, see comments from Day 2 of the competition)

JSL reminds us that we can meet despair with humour, and that a book can be funny while still touching on important issues.

AL calls BofN a great read, one that will “turn on a light” for people (which is just a little to vague to contradict his earlier statements about the importance of social issues in literature)

AW keeps her cards close to her chest – a wise and intriguing move I think.

SS argues that a good book should stand the test of time, and be relevant for generations to come and …”generations before us” (a troubling anachronism in itself, and a point I feel is so obvious its irrelevant. I’d like to think that literature doesn’t have the same expiry date risk as shag carpet.)

Annnnnnd highlights from the confessional:

• AW feels “completely betrayed” by AL, but admits, like a big girl, that that’s the name of the game
• AL calls SS “Sarah the Slayer Slean”
• AL admits he liked Fat Woman better than Fruit, but felt like he had to stick up for the bullied Fruit, and that he wanted it to stick around. Does he want it to stick around because he thinks BofN has got a better shot against it? But he is disappointed his vote worked…Otherwise this is a bizarre voting strategy.
• AL complains “I suck a strategy” (see above) and explains his notorious chart (based on the Canadian electoral campaigning system), before dramatically crumpling it into a ball. I am rather impressed by the chart, though.
• NC looks a little crestfallen and admits “I don’t think I’m the best advocate.” Kinda felt a little bad for the guy there.

Miscellania:

• I haven’t mentioned it so far, but I’m not impressed with the creepy dollhouse-type theme that opens the show. Can we try for something better next year, CBC?
• Predictions for tomorrow’s double elimination? Can JSL lead the charge against BofN? Will Fruit finally get the boot? Will today’s anti-Outlander sentiment into tomorrow?
• Avi Lewis rejects promoting books based on their social platform as “good for you,” an argument that interestingly, is applied to classic CanLit as well. Yet at the same time we often disdain the Danielle Steeles and Stephanie Meyers as being “bad for you.” Is there a happy medium, or should be just aim for a balanced diet? (For the record, the KIRBC philosophy has always been that a balanced  diet is good for you – everyone needs to indulge once and again). So my question has two parts: 1) Should we promote books as “good for you”?  2) What kind of books should CR promote, and which of the books on offer is the best example of that?

The Fat Woman Next Door Is…Eliminated.

Read Full Post »

Canada Reads 2009: Day 3

“When the world seems to be spinning out of control, we can still count on books…” – Jian Ghomeshi

Day three started with yesterday’s cliffhanger vote to determine who would go home. I was putting it 60/40 Mercy/Fruit, and was both right and wrong. And here are the voting results:

JSL: Mercy
SS: BofN – a vote she calls “purely strategic”
AL: Mercy because “it sparkled the least in my heart”
NC: Fat Woman “If I recommend this book to people, they may not be calling me back for a recommendation again.” Burn!
AW: Mercy

So all that talk about Fruit leads to nothing (for now, anyway). Despite her claim to strategy, it seems Sarah Slean made her move to vote against BofN too soon – a vote against Fruit might have been a better strategic move. Though it turns out no strategy could save her. The reaction to being dumped by Canada? Sarah Slean makes this into a Sydney Henderson-esque trial, and looks forward to not having to advocate for her book, yet about 30 seconds later, when talking about Fat Woman, she brings it back to Mercy again. Mercy may be gone, but I can guarantee it’s not going to be forgotten.

Jian moves the conversation along, asking the panelist who the best storyteller is. The results:

JSL: Gil Adamson
SS: Michel Tremblay, citing rhythm and pacing as major reasons
AW: Lawrence Hill
AL gives props to Gil Adamson, but drifts towards Lawrence Hill

Jian then takes advantage of these mentions to out The Outlander‘s previously low profile. (It seems Adamson’s free ride is over). Nicholas Campbell offers a brief synopis, calling it “the most Canadian story.” AL takes the opportunity to weigh in with a self-confessed “cheap shot” – that most of Adamson’s research and influences came from American sources, or at least from the Western tradition.

Which of course leads to the big question: How important in “Canadian-ness” to the competition and to Canadian literature? This is the most clamourous part of the episode, and all of the women eagerly agree that universality is more important than something bearing the maple leaf brand. With her usual eloquence, Jen Sookfong Lee states that if we limit Canadian identity we can never grow or expand.Avi Lewis jumps in with the problematic nature of Canadian identiy, and reasserts that a crucial part of Canadian identity is in fact, internationality.

And so of course the panelists have gotten to the heart of the paradox of literary representation – something can be incredibly specific, and still have universal appeal. For example, Fruit is Sarnia in the 1980s, but teenage insecurity is in no way limited to, or limited by, that locale. Similarly, Anne-Marie Withenshaw argues that while Fat Woman IS Montreal, that the story could take place in any city. But even if it can do both things, should a CANADA Reads book ideally still be grounded in the regional? I think it also might depend on whether the goal is to get all of Canada reading, or to read Canada (or both).

After the liveliness of the nationalism debate, Jian keeps the focus on The Outlander. He mentions its   frequently praised writing, and asks if that in any way inhibits the story. The comments:

AW weighs in saying “I was getting lost in the beautiful writing and the dozens of skirts. I needed some room to breathe!” While this is perhaps a valid point, I would point out that Fat Woman should be the one to face charges of claustrophobia – both in content and in style – the words and people are crammed onto the pages.

SS thinks its a sin of omission that we don’t see enough Mary. Of course once again, this is a book and a style radically different than her own choice. Mary Boulton doesn’t dwell on whether killing her husband was right or wrong. The Outlander is a story of survival, not, to borrow Charlotte Ashley’s apt phrase, “self-flaggelation.”

JSL also doesn’t feel like there’s enough of Mary, that the narrative distance made it a less satisfying emotional read.

NC isn’t having any of it, insisitng that “when I read this my teeth ached” which is an interesting metaphor for emotional sparsity, but I think the point gets across.

Then Jian shifts the focus to The Book of Negroes, and whether its sweeping epic is believable as Aminata crosses many countries and continually evades peril. The panelists were divided. SS, AW and NC thought so, though JSL, always the novel’s most persistent critic, insisted it wasn’t, that both Aminata and  her circumstances were too good to be true. Jen Sookfong Lee  and Nicholas Campbell disagree on the supporting characters in BofN however; NC says Aminata is the only real character, whereas JSL seems to find that she’s the only unreal character. (My opinion falls in between – while Aminata is, in many ways, too good to be true, I didn’t feel the need to challenge it (just as I didn’t care that we don’t explore all the agonizing depths of Mary Boulton’s soul), but I did enjoy a couple members of BofN‘s supporting cast as well.

And with the last question of the episode, Jian asks which character had the most emotional impact on the panelists (with a wise stipulation to try and pick a book other than your own):

AL chooses Peter Paddington, though as usual he can’t help mentioning his own book, and insists that Aminata Diallo “haunts his dreams.”

AW gets behind Aminata as well, noting that on finishing the book, “I felt like I had lost a friend.”

NC doesn’t pick a character, but mentions both BofN, and Fat Woman, which has personal significance as it reminds him of his childhood in Quebec.

JSL makes a revolutionary move by picking a single character in the Fat Woman – Therese, who she says is like a little Lolita, and she couldn’t help but fear for her. Once again I’m impressed by JSL, and Anne-Marie Withenshaw should be thankful. If an argument is going to be made for Fat Woman, which is in a sense a character study, some of those characters need to be individually identified to prove they are, in fact, memorable.

Lastly, SS, clearly miffed she can’t say Sydney Henderson, surprisingly supports The Book of Negroes, proving that her vote against it was strategic as she said.

And once again we conclude with a secret vote, but today it seems much less clear. Is Fruit still in danger despite the fact that it was barely mentioned today? I think we should be looking for the women to try and off Book of Negroes sometime soon, if not for their dislike of it, because it’s a definite threat.

And interesting moments from the post-show confessional:

• SS admits she threw Mercy across the room several times when reading it. (For the record, the only time I’ve ever done this is after reading 1000 pages of The Fellowship of the Ring and it just dropping off and with Frodo just getting in a boat and drifting towards Modor. I knew it was a trilogy, but after that many pages, I was looking for a little more payoff than that.)
• AL fears Sarah Slean becoming a loose cannon – “Sarah didn’t fall in love with anything else. She could be a spolier.”
• JSL fears Sarah Slean’s venom for Fruit, and SS reveals its still her least favourite, though she gives JSL a nod for her stellar advocacy.
• AL mentions that Jian said there seemed to be a coronation happening for Book of Negroes.
• JSL demonstrates that she’s more than just a smooth talker, and that she’s strategically keeping it a secret that she’s voting strategically

Miscellania:

• Did you know you can also WATCH videos of Canada Reads? I haven’t done it yet, but I would certainly like to see some facial expressions.
• This is unapologetically a Survivor-style competition, where people seem to be more concerned with their book winning than with the best book winning. Is that a problem for you? Is it even possible for 5 people (without the focus on literary merit of an awards jury) to agree on the same book?
• Also, I’m dying to know which book people think is going home next. I’m putting my predictions at 60/40 Fruit/Book of Negroes. Thoughts?

No mercy for Mercy Among the Children

Read Full Post »