Compare our literature to that of, say, Britain. The Brits produce truckloads of difficult, lyrical, experimental and non-trendy writing. But they also regularly give us successful crossovers in the vein of Zadie Smith, Ishiguro, Ian McEwan or Geoff Dyer – serious writers who put enormous effort into making their work accessible and exciting for a mainstream readership.

Such writers help nurture the literary ecosystem in any number of ways: by attracting educated non-specialists to serious reading, by reflecting directly yet intelligently on the popular culture, by keeping the overall lit scene from becoming too stuffy, etc.

I have nothing against Lisa Moore’s highly accomplished prose, and don’t believe that Canadian writers are too “feminized,” as Kay has it. But I do wish we had a stronger contingent of writers here working in the savvy crossover vein of the above-mentioned Brits.

Michael: This is a well put. To it I’d only add that there is a cultural-nationalist argument for arguing not against the conventional novel (whatever that is), as much as arguing for a radical expansion of the idea of literature.

Canadians — curiously for a people who are not only perceived outside the country as rather conventional, but have, as far as I can tell, internalized this perception — produce a substantial amount of narrative culture that doesn’t take the form of the conventional novel. Unfortunately, this body of work tends to be overlooked.

Our national failing is not at the level of creative output, but at the level of filtering and assessment. And these days, given the dual crisis of economic viability and faith that is afflicting much of publishing, the filtering is getting more severe at the very first line.

And 30-plus years later . . . the exact same names. Which says something about the “growth” of originality and literary prestige in this country, doesn’t it? I think Michael Turner’s point is related to the same concern.

Kay’s provocation is hardly worth repeating, though I can assure you, unlike Kay with Lisa Moore’s February, I have read her articles and “have no apologies.” Galloway’s argument, on the other hand, provides the usual B+ response, setting in motion his own blindered outlook.

Where I take issue with Galloway is not his connoisseurial take on what is “neither a novel nor literature,” but his denial of new forms (radio, film, television, internet…) and their influence not only on the literature but as literature – a position typical of a novelist-first writer.

I have read novels (let’s call them fictions, too) “ripped from the headlines” (American Tabloid), just as I have read them as “sitcoms” (Pride and Prejudice), “action movies” (Heinlein’s Starship Soldiers begat Starship Troopers), and, sooner than later, tweets.

Because Galloway has reminded us that “[o]urs is not a homogenous literature,” I would hope that he might prove that to us one day by acknowledging this country’s post-genre, post-medium literary tradition. Until then, and in his words, “literature ceases to exist.”