Canada Reads, Day 3

Posted 27 February, 2008 in Canada Reads |

Alex: Hump day at the Ceeb. Here’s how I saw it:

(1) No surprise in Gallant going off first. We both predicted this before the program started. Still, there was some real emotion in Moore’s cry of dismay. I just wonder how she could have been surprised when the final vote came down to Shaikh, especially after the bad blood that blossomed between the two of them yesterday obviously carried over today. Before Shaikh’s vote Moore voted against Not Wanted on the Voyage because of its false feminist consciousness. At least that’s the main reason she gave. She also claimed she “did it for badness” (which she helpfully translated as wanting to be bad).

(2) There was some good critical discussion, or at least as good as I think you can expect given the compressed format. Interesting topics included whether it makes any difference who is the best “writer,” and the importance of cultural or social relevance. On the latter point there was the germ of a good debate between Bidini (who thinks we should look at books “out of time”), and Moore and Jemini. But even MacLean, who I thought was the weakest of the panelists the first two days, really came out strong, bringing in a short passage from Gallant for close analysis and then going after Findley for being too programmatic. Shaikh, on the other hand, slipped a bit. His line about how The English Patient grabbed him by the balls was very odd.

(3) Not a great day for the host. Jian jammed in one of those information bytes just when the discussion was warming up, and completely failed to understand what Moore was saying about judging a writer by their style. I think it was clear from what she said that she thinks Hopkinson is technically the worst writer on the list (a judgement I think is hard to dispute), but Jian thought she was saying the opposite. Then he backed out of his mistake awkwardly, mumbling something about not wanting to put Moore “on the spot.”

(4) Looking forward it still seems as though King Leary is the frontrunner. Icefields is looking very iffy for the next round, as neither Bidini or Shaikh (the two votes “in play” assuming the others stick to their guns) seem that keen on it and Jemini will probably stand firm. I did think it was interesting that Brown Girl in the Ring was the one book that didn’t receive any votes in the first round, but its support still strikes me as soft.

Steven: Well, Alex, WE CALLED IT (insert Stephen Colbert-type fanfare here).

To nobody’s real surprise, except, inexplicably, the CBC’s resident blogger Lee, who received the news with “utter disbelief,” Mavis Gallant’s collection From the Fifteenth District was the first casualty of this year’s Canada Reads tournament. Of course it was. Dave Bidini captured exactly why: “It didn’t grab me.” This should come as no surprise, really, from the man who later championed King Leary because “it’s just a damn fine story.” Of course Gallant’s book didn’t grab him: the sensibilities are totally different. What surprised me was that there weren’t more votes against From the Fifteenth District.

In fact, the first four panelists Ghomeshi called upon chose four different titles to send back: Steve MacLean voted against King Leary (sensible man), Jemeni voted against Icefields, Dave Bidini voted against From the Fifteenth District, and Lisa Moore voted against Not Wanted on the Voyage. Whether Ghomeshi knew how the votes were distributed in advance and called on the panelists in a particular order to enhance the suspense of the moment, Survivor style, is unknown, but, as you say, Zaib Shaikh’s choice wasn’t really shocking.

This does leave the panel in an odd position, as Ghomeshi pointed out, with three of the four books still in play having been dissed by at least one panelist. Jemeni has at least been consistent in her dislike of Icefields, although today she seemed to criticize it based on what she wished it was as opposed to what it is: “I started out and really enjoyed the characters and wanted to know more about, you know, the angel in the story or a romance that was starting and I felt that it didn’t go in the way and the direction I was hoping for with the speed I was hoping for.”

Moore held fast to her dislike for the archetypes in Findley’s book, but here again it seems like more of a clash of sensibilities than anything else. And she stated that she might have been more forgiving towards the text had it been written by someone less skillful.

Meanwhile, looking back at the discussion on Day 1, it doesn’t seem to me that MacLean was anywhere near as effusive about King Leary as Ghomeshi makes him out to be in today’s broadcast.

After the panel finished justifying their various choices for which book should be voted off, Ghomeshi turned the discussion to the social relevance of the various books, asking if this should be a factor in the ultimate decision. Here, I agree with your point from yesterday, Alex, that the discourse became very shallow, particularly in the panel’s insistence that Icefields be read as a comment on environmentalism. Lisa Moore quoted a passage from late in the novel that she said gave her shivers: “Not much is lost every year, a few feet at most, but the rate could increase given the trend to warmer weather during the past few seasons. In time — centuries from now, but then again perhaps in Trask’s own lifetime — there may be nothing left for visitors to see.” It is easy to read this in 2008 through the prism of Al Gore’s inconvenient truth, and perhaps the fact that Wharton wrote those words in a novel published in 1995 just goes to show that artists do often have the gift of foresight, and the ability to face up to things that the rest of us are wilfully blind to. However, to make that the basis of a reading of the novel seems a bit off to me.

I am sympathetic to Moore’s comment that novels change with each reader and over time: “That’s what’s magical about literature — there’s no containing it, there’s no holding it, there’s no defining it and this book is changing before our very eyes, just like the icefields.” Bidini’s rejoinder, that the person who reads Huck Finn on the week it comes out has the same reaction to it as the person who reads Huck Finn tomorrow, is an early candidate for the most ludicrous statement by a panelist this year.

This was closely followed by Ghomeshi’s bizarre misunderstanding of Moore’s assessment of what makes a good book. Moore says: “Thomas Wharton has the most beautiful images and the structure is unpredictable in some ways, but Brown Girl in the Ring, I find the sentences aren’t interesting, the pacing is rushed, I think craft-wise it’s not there for me but, did it make me think things I’ve not thought before? Yes. And so, I want both those things from writing. I want to be forced to think of things I’ve never thought or felt before and I want to be knocked back by the beauty of the language.” Ghomeshi’s response? “So, according to Lisa Moore, the best writing is Nalo Hopkinson?”

Yes, it was one of those days.

Moving forward, King Leary does look strong, but I’m also cognizant of the fact that no one voted against Brown Girl in the Ring in the first elimination round … so maybe …

3 comments to “Canada Reads, Day 3”

Claire, February 28th, 2008 at 11:38 am:

• This is better than The Hills Aftershow.

Steven W. Beattie, February 28th, 2008 at 12:08 pm:

• Oh! My! God!

ragdoll, February 28th, 2008 at 4:23 pm:

• Goodness, I am so glad these are up. I totally forgot to listen until today — so these recaps are wicked. Wickedly wicked. And I’m actually pegging “Not Wanted on the Voyage” to come out the winner…although I can see how “King Leary” could be the dark horse in this race.

Your comment:

Name (required)

Mail (requried)

Website

Security code (Required)*
To prove that you're not a bot, enter this code