Refusés that Refuses to Retreat, and the Best Way to Proceed
They’re at it again, this time in the Globe and Mail where Wayne Grady, editor of the first Penguin Book of Canadian Short Stories 28 years ago, defends as I did last summer, Jane Urquhart’s rationale for selecting the short stories which appear in her recently published Penguin collection. In so doing he accuses opponent John Metcalf of committing "the lazy critic’s error of castigating a book for failing to do what it never set out to do in the first place, and then questioning the judgment of its editor because she didn’t produce the book he would like to have seen. His diatribe, therefore, amounts to little more than a fit of unseemly name-calling and name-dropping."
This as I’ve indicated before, is the most salient point in the controversy. Metcalf and Steven Beattie believe that a Penguin collection of short stories should consist of Canada’s most aesthetically accomplished works. Urquhart, with a mandate to do as she pleased, chose to go with stories that haunted her, that offered comfort and pleasure; that incorporated the act of immigration, the emotionally and physically ‘true;’ stories in which family plays a role; which live in the distant past or the future and take us out of ourselves with myth, disguise, magic or music; and finally, those which concern death brought on by winter weather.
This criteria is specific and valid. It is attacked because it is not what Metcalf and Beattie claim it ought to be.
Clarifying the different approaches, Steven writes as follows: "The thematic critic views stories as contributing to some vague notion of nationhood or national identity. This is the Survival school of criticism, and any Canadian who truly appreciates the cultural artifacts that we produce – as cultural artifacts, not as some sort of ad hoc arm’s length embodiment of the principles espoused through Heritage Canada – should bemoan the pernicious influence of that particular volume. The evaluative critics, by contrast, view stories (and novels, and poems) as aesthetic performances; their sole criterion for success is literary merit.
I favour the evaluative approach, but again, as Grady points out, Metcalf is critical of Urquhart for not compiling the collection he would like to have seen. In responding to Grady, incidentally, John throws this grenade:
"Grady refers to his editing the first Penguin Book of Canadian Short Stories 28 years ago. His credentials for doing so were as tenuous as Jane Urquhart’s now, credentials seemingly derived from his editing Harrowsmith, a magazine devoted to husbandry and mulch."
exemplifying once again his great talent for sharp, hugely entertaining invective.
If this debate is to continue without sliding deeper into a mulchy slag fest, the best way to proceed is for each party to argue the relative merits of their selections, case by case, from thematic and/or aesthetic perspectives. I for one would happily, at sort of cross purposes, defend the aesthetic value of Constance by Virgil Burnett, a story included in Urquhart’s collection and condemned by Metcalf and Beattie for its wretchedness.