In a flat land, literary prizes at least lend perspective
I’ve been fulminating in this space over the past little while about the lack of a Canadian Canon. Canadian criticism has for the most part run in the opposite direction of its evaluative responsibilities. Present though on this leveled playing field are at least two lists which lend some topography, some perspective, some/any measures of greatness. The Governor General’s Award for Fiction, and more recently the Giller, regardless of their faults, do serve a valuable purpose, especially in a land where judgment is so foreign. Telling, I suppose, that until recently, the task of identifying what has value, what is worthy of praise (at least according to the jury du jour), has been performed primarily by government. Now, the choices may all be ‘wrong,’ and largely unjustified, but at least they are out there, waiting for the brave to berate or congratulate them; to take them on, to defend or attack them at length. To get the ball rolling.
In light of these musings, it was with pleasant recognition that I read this from Philip Marchand in the National Post:
"Giller Prize juries make the best they can of an impossible task, anointing one book as best of the year. It’s ridiculous in a way, but it’s also useful. Like the university canon of Canadian literature, the Giller Prize choices give us a starting point to talk about Canadian books. In a world where we’re flooded with novels, we need a list of books to argue over and compare. We need a shared conversation about Canadian literature. For helping to stimulate that conversation, the Giller Prize deserves thanks."
December 27th, 2009 at 1:29 PM
The “evaluative responsibilities” of criticism? You must be living in 1910. Criticism, especially in the academy, has for decades tried to show how literature works and — among many other things — to examine its connections with lives, literary movements, and history. It has turned away from assertions of what is good and less good, realizing that such claims are in the end matters of personal taste and indefensibly subjective.
The notion of a Canadian canon was abandoned years ago because of the enormous diversity of literary creation in this country. The same thing has happened elsewhere. While it remains true that, individually, we all still know what we like, probably the best one can say about public evaluation now is that if a work appears on a course description, then it has merit of a particular sort that will be duly explained to a patient listener. As for the books that win literary prizes, unless any special criteria for the prizes are spelled out when they are awarded, time will be the supreme and final arbiter of value.
December 27th, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Who abandoned the notion? And since when is diversity a reason not to identify what is good and what is bad?
“if a work appears on a course description, then it has merit of a particular sort that will be duly explained to a patient listener” …in other words some academic has determined that it – rather than unchosen works – better illustrates certain theories
or themes; this typically results in the kind of vapid, descriptive criticism that scares readers away from the genre.
That time will be the supreme and final arbiter of value, is of course true, but I’d rather know this while I’m still alive; or at least read the arguments of talented writers capable of convincing me that theirs are the right answers.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:54 AM
“Who abandoned it?” It was abandoned by too many well-known names to mention here.
“In other words”? Those are indeed *other* words.
“While you’re still alive”? Well, your wish may prove to be an unfortunate one. I think you’ll have to take your chances and pick your books on the strength of your own convictions. It sounds as if what you want is a short-cut to the best. There is no short-cut to the best.
Happy reading.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:49 AM
I just want to spend my time as profitably as possible. This is why I enjoy and benefit from reading not theory and theme based critics but those who present the best cases for what they consider to be the best books…