Canada Reads: Day 5

Yesterday on Canada Reads, we went from a touchy feely discussion of the modern family to Michel Vézina criticizing the reading skills of his fellow panelists. Today we start with Jian saying the Canada Reads books “sell like tickets to a Justin Bieber concert” (which may or may not have elicited a national cringe).

Before we  get on to the main event, the highlights (or lowlights) from the Post-Day 4 Confessional:

• All Perdita can say is OMG and the other panelists seem genuinely shocked that the giant was felled
• Samantha Nutt claims she gives up on strategy
• Rollie decided to Keep It Real. Amen, brother.
• Simi admits she loved Nikolski (knowing this would make today’s vote less stressful)
• Michel says no one in Quebec thought it was too complicated . . . ooooooo
• Rollie condemns Good to a Fault calling it undeveloped and saying “I know a lot of moms who are into it”

And so the vote (and the re-vote!):

RP: Good to a Fault, SS: Nikolski, SN: Nikolski, MV (who apparently doesn’t know how to vote strategically)  Jade Peony, PF: Good to a Fault (which was quite shocking to me, considering her frequent criticism of the book).

And so then, a dramatic re-vote, where clearly Simi Sara would be the deciding factor for the first of two times today:

MV: Good to a Fault, SS: Nikolski, RP: Good to a Fault, SN: Nikolski, PF: Good to a Fault

And then I may have cried out in excitement (which is somewhat frowned upon in an office environment). Not that I didn’t appreciate Good to a Fault, I just don’t think it’s the book that’s going to get all of Canada jazzed about reading, and I REALLY didn’t want to see Nikolski go.

Mentioning that with two smaller books remaining in the competition, we have something approaching a fair fight, Jian asks which author constructed the most vivid images and used language most vividly?

The panelists who are not championing one of the final books all get nice and comfortable on the fence, and Jian has to point out they’re “tremendously different writing styles.” Thankfully, Samantha Nutt really shines here,  referencing specific images and metaphors in The Jade Peony (specifically the wind chimes, which were my favorite image in the novel as well). Michel chooses to focus on sensory details in Nikolski, saying he could smell the fish in the shop (which seems like an unfortunate example).

The last question asks which book is more relevant for people across the country today. As first generation Canadians, Perdita & Simi think The Jade Peony is still enormously relevant, though Simi notes that Nikolski‘s scope could make it more identifiable for a broad audience.

In a chance for final arguments, Michel Vezina stresses that Nikolsi gives you a picture of Canada and Canada in the rest of the world. Samantha Nutt says The Jade Peony asks, “What does it actually mean to be Canadian,” and that perhaps the Canadian experience is actually in the asking. I actually thought that was a pretty significant insight in all the debate over Canadianness that comes up for the competition. Perhaps being Canadian is the very act of continually questioning our own identity (something that is central in The Jade Peony and Nikolski).

And now, the final vote:

Let’s face it, this came down to Simi Sara once again, and I would have left her vote until last. SN & MV for their own, SS: Jade Peony, PF: Nikolski, RP: Nikolski

And so, Nikolski becomes the biggest fish in the Canada Reads pond.

In the post-vote disucssion, Michel identifies the TSN turning point being that FOYK fell so soon, which I think is accurate. FOYK is the only one that might have had a chance to fell Nikolski. Rollie also notes the importance of having a book that doesn’t have an identity. (Here’s hoping panelists take that under consideration next year.)

Interestingly, the Civilians Read competition played out only slightly differently (exchange the second and fourth elimination), and the result was the same: Nikolski. So given this insight, how important is the panelist factor? For anyone who followed Civilians Read, I’d love to have you weigh in with you thoughts.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to announce the winner of our Civilians Read best panelist poll. And the Oscar goes to . . . Natalie St. Pierre. Congrats, Natalie, and thank you for your preparation, your eloquence, and your great radio voice! A fabulous prize is coming your way. Also a huge thank you to all those who took the time to stop by for discussion during the Civilians Read and Canada Reads broadcast. The engaging discussion and contagious enthusiasm is what makes all the hard work worthwhile. Also, stay tuned for a new project announcement today at 3:00 involving me and fellow Civilian Erin Balser.

And so, Celebs and Civilians alike declare Nikolski is the book that all of Canada should read. And despite some of the panelists’ struggles with the book’s complexity, I have a feeling Canadians will be delighted.

Read Full Post »

Canada Reads: Day 4

Yesterday, in a fairly tame episode, we saw GenX pack its bags and head back to Palm Springs and a more hospitable climate, the panelists debate what makes a Canadian novel, and a discussion of poverty and class.

Today we start out with the usual assertion of self-importance (CR title = lots of book sales, we get it), and shout outs to Canada Also Reads and Canada Reads Independently! A nice hat tip to the online world from the CBC.

Highlights from the post-Day 3 Confessional

• Jian makes an appearance to provide his own commentary and notes the Kumbaya vibe of the room
• Cut to: Perdita planning her revenge on Samantha and anyone else who votes against her
• Samantha backpedals (save it for the debates when Perdita can hear you) & says everyone is voting with their hearts
• Rollie accuses the competition of being based on  “some undefinable measure of what it means to be Canadian and what makes a good book”
• Simi is in denial about the possibility of her book being binned

And so the second round of voting:

SN: Nikolski, MV: Fall on Your Knees, PF: The Jade Peony, RP: Good to a Fault, and so it comes down to SS who votes for Fall on Your Knees, and shockingly, Fall on Your Knees‘s  torch is extinguished. This scattered vote seemed like utter madness to me (a four way tie!), but at least it was exciting. It looks like most people are just voting strategically (or in Perdita’s case, for payback!), though MV actually says he voted on the book itself, since he likes “short, action books.” Interestingly, after the endless debates about whether big name titles have a place in this competition, the two best-known books are gone.

After I picked up my jaw from the desk the competition moved on, and the first question asks which family resonated for you most? Rollie supports Nikolski, and MV elaborates on this “exploded family” that is an accurate representation of our society. Perdita gets all touchy feely about Good to a Fault, saying, “They didn’t have a lot of things but they had each other,” naturally SS supports her own.  Just when we thought things couldn’t get any sweeter, Samantha states, “Family is who loves you.” She notes that, like the others, Jade Peony isn’t a traditional family, but one with children with different parents, “paper family,” and an adopted child. That said, what disappointed me most about The Jade Peony is that the siblings seemed insulated from one another, and I think the stories were more about their personal struggles than the family itself.

But before things get too sentimental and all the panelists decide to adopt each other, the conversation turns to things that stopped panelists from relating to the families in question. SN continues with her hate on for Nikolski, and basically thought it was too much work and that she couldn’t get emotionally invested in the characters, and as a rebuttal MV compares reading Nikolski to looking through a box of family pictures,where they don’t need to be in order — you can put together the story itself. Kudos to Mr. Vezina here, who has definitely has the most thoughtful and original commentary of the competition.

The conversation turns to which book had the panelists least emotionally invested. Rollie was after Good to a Fault once again, which he though had nothing unique. Perdita also condemns the book as “stereotypical apart from Clary,” but admits she was  least invested in Nikolski. “Didn’t leave it full and satisfied.” Perdita likes a book she can approach with a knife and fork.

Simi’s given a chance to stand up for her title, and launches into a somewhat rehearsed speech about the failures of religion in GTAF, and how the community fills its place.  Samantha Nutt also throws in some support for the title by finally making the point I’m surprised no one has made so far, about the book’s ability to make you face your own assumptions. This is the point that sold the book for me, so I was shocked that Simi han’t made use of it so far.

Next Jian brought up that The Jade Peony‘s three tales aren’t terribly cohesive (again, my main objection to the book). Samantha works the Grandmother angle, saying she’s what unites the stories (the best argument I think you can make), but the others still aren’t sold. MV chimes in,  “That’s not a novel” and says he didn’t feel he was being told a story, felt like he was reading a history book. Simi Sara adds that it felt incomplete, and that there are “missing pieces to the puzzle.”

The last question of the day was a great one: Which book is mostly to polarize readers into the love it or hate in camps, and should that influence which book you vote for?  Rollie cites Nikolski‘s non-linear narrative (managing a moment of Coupland-ese saying he likes something that makes him think, “in most of the media I absorb”). Simi actually suggests her own book (though I’m not sure I agree, seems like the kind of book people just begrudgingly admire). Perdita takes the conversation back to Nikolski, complaining, “I don’t want to do that much homework when I’m reading a book.” This elicits a great response from Michel, who rails, “What does this say about education in this country? You should be able to read!” (or something like that. Why is this part not on the video podcast so I could check?)

With time running out, the panelists don’t really address the second part of the question, which I think is really interesting. Given the option between a love it or hate it book or a ho-hum book that inspires a lukewarm reaction (*cough* Jade Peony *cough*), I’d put my weight behind the love it or hate it, because one of the main objectives  of art is to inspire a strong reaction.

In their last-minute pleas, MV asks the panelists to embrace a book BECAUSE it’s challenging, Simi’s back on GTAF being a book about compassion, and whether we really care about our neighbours. Giving one of the most generic endorsements of all time, SN calls The Jade Peony “a fine example of the craft and a book all Canadians can enjoy.”

And so ends Day 4, with the barometer rising as we approach the last day of competition. Predictions for the vote? If the Anti-Nikolski contingent (Perdita and Samantha) can find an ally in Simi, I’m sorry to say, Nikolski could go. Otherwise, GTAF seems the next likely candidate. What really scares me is that Jade Peony could make its way to the final round just because no one really hated it. And I fear that outcome would make me quote Perdita: “Yawn.”

Read Full Post »

Canada Reads: Day 3

In yesterday‘s Canada Reads debate, the panelists discussed character and inventive writing, but hackles raised when it was time to weigh in on the popularity factor. The day ended with the first elimination vote, with the voting music sounding an awful lot like GenX‘s funeral dirge. And so the mobs gather for Day 3, and the competition’s first public execution.

First, some highlights from the post-day 2 confessional:

• SN says keeping quiet and letting the others fight it out is part of her strategy
• PF: “If I book gets cut loose I’m pretty much going to be a hell raiser for every book.”
• Much like GTAF‘s Civlians Read champion Sarah Labrie, SS expects to go first, but cautions she’ll be a loose cannon when her book goes

When it came time to reveal the votes, you didn’t have to have the predictive powers of Erin Balser to call how they would go:  RP: Good to a Fault, SN: Fall on Your Knees (who qualifies that it was strategic), PF: GenX, MV: GenX, SS: GenX.

GenX is a love it or hate it book with a huge profile that makes it a neon target, and in terms of content and style, does stick out like a sore thumb. It seems like an easy elimination to make (Note that our Civilians made the same decision on Day 3). Rollie’s a little crestfallen, but accepts defeat gracefully. I think the defeat will be nothing but good news for Nikolski, since MV has a staunch supporter in Rollie.

The first question of the day asks the panelists which book (other than their own) had the most vivid sense of place and time. Fall on Your Knees and Nikolski get a lot of love, though predictably, so does The Jade Peony. A notable omission? Good to a Fault, although given the pervasive bias against prairie fiction,  it’s probably an asset the setting is unimportant.

Naturally this regional discussion turns into the always-controversial Canadian-ness question, which Jian is left to defend. MV notes that Nikolski is really the only one that represents the french-speaking part of the National identity. SS asserts that “being Canadian is highly subjective”  and that perhaps rather than focusing on regionalism, we should consider “Canadian qualities.” Naturally SN brings up the immigrant experience, and Perdita talks about diversity in FOYK.

The last question seems to throw a bone to the beleaguered Good to a Fault asking about poverty and class, and asks which book sends the message of class divisions home in the most effective way.

The most obvious choice is of course, Good to a Fault, though good arguments are made for FOYK by MV and PF. SN and RP bring up The Jade Peony and its depiction of poverty (and I particularly liked SN bringing up the stepmother character, who I found to be one of the most fascinating in the book).

We proceed to voting, after a round that saw all the panelists on their best behaviour. This is partially due to the questions, which did not aim to stir up trouble as they have on other days. It makes it a little harder to call who’s going next, but I’d put my money on Good to a Fault, which despite a strong advocate has endured its fair share of criticism.

And as we finish, with Rollie calling out for some twitter love to soothe his broken heart (or bruised ego). Wonder if he’ll hear from @DougCoupland?

Read Full Post »