The item beside this text is an advertisement

“High in antioxidants, low on caffeine”: Leah McLaren weighs in on CanLit

Globe and Mail columnist Leah McLaren is the latest public figure to opine on the state of Can Lit. Prompted by this year’s awards season, McLaren takes the discussion one step further (or, perhaps backward) by flat-out refusing to read any nominated titles.

Beyond wondering who does Annabel Lyon’s hair and if Margaret Atwood is “pissed” by her exclusion from several major shortlists, McLaren simply cannot deign to read jury-selected books, voracious reader though she claims to be. Which, of course, more than qualifies her to weigh in on the subject.

In Saturday’s column, she cautions against the dangers of reading what “the man” tells you to:

[...] despite all the good that literary prizes provide — and I say this as a member of the Authors’ Committee of the Writers’ Trust of Canada — there is also an inherent danger in their increasing cultural primacy.

As one Canadian writer who did not want his name used recently said to me in an e-mail, the problem with prize lists is that they take something intimate and eclectic and turn it into a socially sanctioned Cultural Event.

“Reading — unlike multiplex movie-going, say — is inherently idiosyncratic,” he wrote. “Its idiosyncrasy is in its strength, the breadth of library and bookstore choices offering a feast of discoveries for the curious and story-hungry. Prizes, on the other hand, ultimately work to shape a vast plurality of tastes into a single, institutionally endorsed selection. The Giller is a successful venture, no question about it. But successful at what? Bringing new readers to exciting, boundary-pushing, pleasure-filled books? Or calcifying CanLit into a predictable brand?”

She also likens prize lists to high-school English curricula and the content of prison libraries. Given this year’s sombre selections, it could be argued that McLaren has a point. Besides, who better to judge the state of CanLit than the author of the “giggly, airy” Continuity Girl?

  • Robin Brass

    As a journal dealing with books and writing, you should know how to spell honorary. The spelling you use (honourary) seems to be creeping into the language in the mistaken assumption that this is the British spelling. It isn’t. RB

  • angel guerra

    Robin are you against something new slipping into the language? I like the added “u” — gives the word more weight, more honour. Some wear their honor lightly and that’s fine too. So Robin you’re right but words and people are an unruly lot, gaining and losing weight as we go.

  • Paul

    Robin Brass says: “The spelling you use (honourary) seems to be creeping into the language in the mistaken assumption that this is the British spelling. It isn’t.”

    Being a Canadian publication, presumably the assumption was that it was the Canadian spelling of honorary, since the Canadian standard spelling for honour has a “u”.

  • Murray

    In reference to McLaren’s comments. Point well taken. I agree that the people who ONLY read the prize winners are as narrow and insulated as people who ONLY read horror, or science fiction, or The Economist. But to me – and to ‘serious’ readers, I imagine – prize longlists and shortlists are just another way for books enter my life organically. More often that not they drift through award season unread by me (buying cheaper paperbacks = ability to buy more books), but occasionally one or two will stick in my mind, and I’ll get them later.

    Recently, I’ve felt the opposite of McLaren. Having missed the last few literary crazes (Da Vinci Code, Harry Potter, vampire teenagers, etc.), and then duly assured that I had missed nothing special, I’ve still been making an effort to read what other people are reading. That led me to Bolano’s The Savage Detectives and Atwood’s Payback, books I probably wouldn’t have picked up anytime soon, and in turn had me riding madly off in all directions. (In years past that same instinct also led me to Celestine Prophecy, but all books – popular or not – are crapshoots.)

    I also observe that if and when an “exciting, boundary-pushing” book wins an award, many of its followers feel a twinge of betrayal. Now it’s the establishment’s book, not their quirky little find.

  • FL

    I smell sour grapes. Leah may be disappointed that “Continuity Girl” didn’t make her the CanLit It Girl she hoped it would.

  • http://storms.typepad.com patricia

    Oh please, give the hate-on for Leah a rest. I’m generally no fan of her column, but in this article she presents some legitimate points.

The item directly under this text is an advertisement
Books of the year
Click to see Books of the Year 2011 package Click to see Books of the Year 2010 package Click to see Books of the Year 2009 package
Most shared stories this week
Book Pictures

Do you have great photos from a recent book event in Canada that you'd like to share with us? Submit them to the Quill & Quire Flickr pool and they'll show up here.

a congrats to all

Rage

Jenna Tenn-Yuk

breaktime interviewing

interviewing

Danielle K.L. Gregoire

Sepideh

Elle P

sound poetry

Anita

Frances

winning

Contact us

Recent comments