More libraries than Tim Hortons? Yeah right.

Hm. I’m afraid that I’m giving the impression that I forgot I am a blogger… as I said in my last post, I’ve had some things to take care of.

Life intrudes, right? I’ll tell you about it sometime soon.

My One-year mark with Box 761 has just passed, and while I should have probably, you know, written something, I didn’t. Oh well. I’ve had another year with Mr. 761, who has his own blog now by the way — make your way over to here and prepare to laugh. Gawd, he’s funny.

I’m not going to write a lot today. But I’m mulling over what to write. My invective toward the CBC last year tired me out, and made me feel slightly soiled near the end — I’m trying now to avoid things that make me crazy, so odds are the Hunger Games will go without being mentioned here again (unless I really really can’t help it, you know how it can be, right? Sometimes I just can’t help myself).

Today I’m going to leave you with this most ridiculous thing I’ve read in ages. So ridiculous that I can’t really even understand it. How is it that I live in a society that values writing, and writers (and readers, and voters) so little? Jeez.

Read this, and weep, dear friends (here’s the link):

Doug Ford blasts Margaret Atwood over libraries, says “I don’t even know her”

Paul Moloney

Urban Affairs Reporter

Councillor Doug Ford has fired back at world-renowned author Margaret Atwood for her criticism of suggested library cuts, telling reporters: “I don’t even know her. If she walked by me, I wouldn’t have a clue who she is.”

yeah. Our appetite for books *way* exceeds that for Timmies.

Ford also said that the literary icon and activist — who took him to task on Twitter for saying, erroneously, that his Etobicoke ward has more libraries than Tim Hortons — should get herself elected to office or pipe down.

“Well good luck to Margaret Atwood. I don’t even know her. If she walked by me, I wouldn’t have a clue who she is,” said the councillor and advisor to his brother, Mayor Rob Ford, after a committee meeting on proposed cuts.

“She’s not down here, she’s not dealing with the problem. Tell her to go run in the next election and get democratically elected. And we’d be more than happy to sit down and listen to Margaret Atwood.”

Atwood, an activist on literary and human rights causes, waded into municipal politics in a minor way last Thursday.

She retweeted a Twitter message asking people to sign an online petition, started by the library workers’ union, telling city hall to ignore consultant KPMG’s suggestion to “rationalize the footprint of libraries to reduce service levels, closing some branches.”

Many of Atwood’s more than 250,000 Twitter followers complied, promptly crashing the

A triple-triple?

server hosting the petition.

The author then started tweeting about the library fight, mocking Doug Ford’s Tim Hortons comment on talk radio, and telling the Star that Toronto’s libraries are “astonishing. I’ve done research in them.”

She tweeted Friday: “Twin Fordmayor seems to think those who eat Timbits (like me) don’t read, can’t count, & are stupid eh?” and later asked her followers to check out library books, hold a book club in Tim Hortons and submit their names to win a visit from her and possibly other authors.

Atwood was publicly quiet Tuesday, a day after writing that she would be away from Twitter for a week writing her next novel. Calls to her publisher and private office have not been returned.

Both “Margaret Atwood” and “Doug Ford” were briefly “trending” worldwide on Twitter on Tuesday afternoon, meaning they were among the most discussed topics on the social networking site.

Doug Ford (Ward 2, Etobicoke North) stood by his contention that some of Toronto’s 99 libraries should close, adding he would shutter one of the three in his Ward 2, Etobicoke North ward “in a heartbeat.”

“All my point is, in my area at Rexdale and Kipling, there’s a library in an industrial area that is an industrial plaza and no one knows it’s there. But it’s there.

“Why do we need another little library in the middle of nowhere that no one uses? My constituents, it wouldn’t bother them because you have another library two miles one way and two miles the other way.”

His comments about Atwood left some council colleagues bewildered.

“It’s just not something you say one of Toronto’s, and Canada’s, literary giants,” said Councillor Mike Layton. “She’s Margaret Atwood — she’s pretty important and a source of pride to a lot of people. What I’m hearing from people is mostly embarrassment about his remarks.”

Layton (Ward 19, Trinity-Spadina), a rookie member of council’s left wing, said he would be “surprised” if Ford meant he has never heard of Atwood, one of the world’s most honoured living fiction writers, with awards including a Booker Prize for The Blind Assassin and two Governor General’s Awards, for The Circle Game and The Handmaid’s Tale.

“Whatever he meant, to tell somebody they have to get elected before we’ll listen to them is just rude. But he was equally dismissive with two CUPE (deputants) who had just told us how they clean up blood and puke in police cells and don’t want to lose their jobs to contracting out.”

Review: Plants for Atlantic Gardens, by Jodi DeLong

none of these helped

Okay. We all know that I love my gardens, but hate gardening. I can’t help it. I find it hard to plan, hard to figure out where to plant, what to plant, and how to plant it. Every single year I have to look up what bloody zone I’m in at least 10 times (5a? 5b?). If you add the pathological fear of having an earwig touch my hand as I weed, I’m a mess with the whole thing.

Problem is, I have quite a bit of yard. I love pretty things — flowery things, blooming lovely smelly butterfly-enticing flowers and shrubs. I adore that moment when I plant something and I can see how it has improved the aspect of the yard. I like sitting with a drink on my deck and looking at pretty things.

Okay. So it’s the upkeep I don’t like about gardening. I have, in fact, managed to convince myself of the wisdom of solving that problem with money. There are plenty of people willing to weed my garden for cash.

My only other problem, then, is finding a way to beautify my surroundings with plants and shrubs that will thrive. Luckily, my friend Jodi DeLong just wrote a book that pretty much solves this problem.

If you’ve been reading my blog at all, you’ll know that I’m not a shill. I don’t write a review unless I think a book is worth writing about. She’s a friend, but if I didn’t like this book, I wouldn’t have a review here.

This book is as useful, if not more, than my other favorite gardening activity (aside from looking at it with a drink in my hand): shopping at the local nursery.  I love going to my local nurseries (there are several around here that are really great)…. I wander aimlessly, buy things that I don’t know the name of, and end up planting them in the wrong place and wondering why they don’t thrive. This book will help with that, and I fully intend to either bring it with me to the nursery, or make notes from it that I will keep in my bag.

There are a couple of things I know to be true:

  • aside from the nicotiana I buy every year and plant in the same spot by the big rock I stole from Harbourville beach, I always plant perennials.
  • go for showy: flowering shrubs are great, and not as picky as flowers can be.
  • you can plant magnolias in Nova Scotia

The rest I’m going to have to learn from reading Jodi’s book.

I’ve been reading it for a while now — the stunning photography (all from the able and

(c) Jodi DeLong

pulmonaria-hybrid

loving camera of the author, by the way) has done much to help me through the interminable winter that was February 2011. The photographs are lush and lovingly organized; generous and in many instances spectacular. Reading her very approachable text and looking at these photos, I got a picture in my mind of the author — wandering all over her land in Scots Bay, crouching and waiting by the pulmonaria (at right) for the perfect moment when the sun hit the petals and showed it at it’s best. Knowing that she took these photos, that these plants are all in and around the Atlantic Region, makes it easier for me to trust it.

I’m an index gal. Any book I get, I look at the index. It’s a game I play — Browsing the Index — and it’s often how I separate an okay book from a good book. Good news — this book has a great index. I played Browsing the Index for several days (hey, I’m a geek, okay?) and the only time I stumped it was when I tried to find something about perennial Sweet Peas (L. latifolius). I love them, and managed to find some in a local nursery a few years ago, but usually they’re considered an annual (and so wouldn’t be listed in this book).

That said, aside from navigating from the index, the book also offers some efficient and well thought-out structure to help the questing gardener: a Plant Hardiness Zone map (thank the gardening gods for that one!) starts it off, along with some introductory material. Then a section each on Shrubs and Trees, and Perennials. Each plant has the same very useful information: family, hardiness, bloom period, growing requirements, height, where best used, propagation, problems and notes. There is also a sidebar of recommended species of each plant — very useful. Each subsection is generously illustrated with more of Jodi’s gorgeous photos, and backed up with her inimitable style – chatty, smart, passionate and oh so readable.

I’ve never enjoyed a gardening book more. Her voice is friendly and smart and funny. She peppers her writing with anecdote and humour, along with the amazing detail and careful science. Her section on “Garden Bullies” (goutweed, for example) is a cautionary tale. The sections are arranged alphabetically  (instead of some complex and completely unintelligible (to me) of phylum, genus, species or something weird like that). The Appendices are great  – snapshots of Deer Resistant Plants (not a problem for me, but for many it is a life-long battle), Plants for Pollinators, Salt and Drought-Resistant Plants, Plants for Moist or Wet Soil, and a list of Nurseries.

Jodi DeLong is the author of “The Atlantic Gardener’s Greenbook”, writes regular gardening columns for the Chronicle Herald and is a gardening editor for Saltscapes magazine. She is scheduled for a number of book signings and talks in the next few months.

She’ll be signing books at the Box of Delights book store in Wolfville, NS  on 05 March from 2-4 pm. She will also be speaking at the Woodlawn Library in Dartmouth on 10 March at 7 p.m.; to the Dartmouth Horticultural Society on March 14; the St. Margaret’s Bay garden club on March 16, the Brookfield garden club on March 22 and at Ouestville Perennials in West Pubnico on April 9. Phew!

Her website is a terrific read and well worth the visit.

Plants for Atlantic Gardens is a softcover, 252-page book, published by Nimbus Publishing. It retails for $29.95.

So You Think You Can Talk Bookies? or, the gameshowification of the CBC Books

I’m back from New Orleans, and in some ways I wish that I were still there. There’s something so great about vacations — that mindset that allows you to concentrate on vital choices such as “drinking or shopping?” or “garden district or french quarter?” (the correct answer to those questions is “both“, btw).

It was lovely.

And boy did I need it after all of that Canada Reads nonsense. I tell ya, I’m not even sure image lifted from cbc websitethat I want to go to that website any more. I can’t help it though — it lures me, like the brown muddy bayou waters I toured last week — and I keep going back. What do I find there but alligator-infested oily murk more junky pseudo literary stuff like The Bookies? This ill-timed and ill-conceived idea happened while the Canada Reads contest was playing out, and was weirdly complicated. Readers had to make up genres and categories, then they had to offer up suggestions for books to fit in those categories, and then they had to go online and vote…. there was very little real information set out, and it got lost in the shuffle.

That’s too bad, because the books that eventually won were all pretty great, and congratulations to them all, by the way. It’s clear, though, that the whole purpose really is to get people clicking through to the CBC books portal. It has nothing much to do with the books or the authors — I mean, did you see the press release they put out about the winners? Of course you didn’t — there wasn’t one. Did you hear about the prize they sent each author? Of course you didn’t — there wasn’t one.

Readers, however, got the chance to win prizesprize packs from The King’s Speech, and a Sony Reader. In fact, I clicked a link called “Bookies Contest Winners” thinking I would get to the books that won, and instead found the list of prize pack winners. Sigh.

Hm. Too bad quite a few of those books aren’t even available as e-books. I’m sure, though, that the certificate that the CBC bookclubbers printed off of their MS Word templates will be greatly appreciated by each author.

See, it’s this kind of stuff that I keep coming back to — since when is the author and the book the least important part of this process? It’s just kind of weird to me that they would offer so little to the authors. They thank Penguin for god’s sake, for giving them prizes to give to people who click on their site, but they have nothing for the authors? I don’t mean that each author needs a cheque (though that would be nice), nor do I mean that they have to buy a page of Quill & Quire to advertise (though that would be nice)….  An attempt on their part to even pretend that the works of art were important would be nice. These books’ value does not lie in how well people guess who will win; they represent time and effort and craft. They represent people creating art, right? Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but this tacky approach demeans it all.

Their chirpy-chirp inanity also demeans it. One of the books that won this “prize” was Billie Livingston’s incandescent short story collection Greedy Little Eyes. To announce her win, the bright lights at CBC Bookclub wrote this:

“Billie Livingston’s Greedy Little Eyes should no longer feel greedy for attention! This insightful collection exploring the concepts of normalcy and isolation defeated two Giller-nominated heavyweights to win the Bookie for Best Short Story Collection. What will Billie have her eyes on next?”

Really? What will she have her eyes on next? Do you think they even read the book?

Okay. Maybe I’m nitpicking, but it just feels so… thrown-together. Like an un-thoughtful, buckshee blurb because they needed to write something peppy with the word “eyes” in it. I think I’m going to go read Billie Livingston’s book again, and then I’m going to read a few of her other books, and then I’m going to write about them here in Box 761. She deserves at least that.

However, that’s all sooo last month. Now we have So You Think You Can Talk Books with Shelagh Rogers.

This is, of course, in keeping with the Game-Show-ification of the CBC books portal. This current game show relies on the conceit that a lucky listener will write in and pitch their ability to go on CBC and talk books with Shelagh.

In 200 words you have to make a pitch — a book you love, why you’re the best person to talk about it, and why other Canadians would want to hear about it. A jury goes through the applications, then there’s an audition process, and then they pick the winners. The deadline is 07 March, here’s the link if you’re interested.

I don’t know why, but this depresses me. Maybe they just didn’t sex it up enough — they could have paired each civilian with a writer, and they could compete by talking about books while dancing. Or maybe each writer can be asked to compose a new novel while they’re discussing their work? Do you think they can get the authors to maybe write some more holiday gift guides? Those were great. Maybe they could do a live show online, and the authors of each book being pitched could give their champions piggy back rides while they talk to Shelagh? What do you think?

I really like Shelagh Rogers, and I have always admired her committment to Canadian writing, and her very clearly articulated respect for and love of Canadian writers. I don’t even actually have a problem with the idea of a panel of civilians talking about books. Somehow, though, the marketing campaign for this just smacks of tacky — it feels very much like the same junky game-showy stunt-radio that Canada Reads became.

Ah… is this just post-holiday bitchiness?

Nah. This really looks to me like yet another (albeit slightly classier) attempt to disguise getting the audience to create their own entertainment as some sort of democratic interactivity. I will watch with interest.

761 Words about Canada Reads

2011 winner

Hm.

Days Two and Three of Canada Reads have come and gone. Terry Fallis’ book The Best Laid Plans is the winner. That is just about all I’m going to say about that.

I have been heartened in the past days to see so much insightful, funny and honest commentary on Canada Reads… it makes my job that much easier. It felt, for a while, as if were the only one writing about this stuff; I wondered, sometimes, if it wasn’t easier for me to do it because I don’t have a place within the established literary circles, or publishing, or radio… I’m just a blogger, you know? I have no real vested interest except for that which is concerned with being able to live in a culture that respects books and writing, that privileges writers and well… takes this stuff seriously.

I’ll read just about anything and give it a chance. I’m pretty omnivorous when it comes to reading and there’s almost nothing I won’t try to read. Like Debbie Travis, there are some books I just haven’t been able to finish, just couldn’t do it. I only have so much time in

Random shelf in downstairs hallway. No order, definitely no dewey decimal system. They’re arranged whimsically, and I read ’em all. Cherry Ames Dude Ranch Nurse,  please meet Louis Althusser.

my life, and like Nancy Pearl and her Rule of 50, I don’t feel guilty about it. That said, there are very few. Confession: never, ever, was able to finish Old Man and the Sea (10th grade reading assignment). Nor have I managed to finish Eat, Pray, Love (Gah! so bad). I say I’ve read The Brothers Karamazov, but now I can’t actually remember if I finished it. There’s nothing wrong with any of that.

We’re all allowed our personal opinions. That’s cool and I want to keep it that way.

In a contest, though, such as this they have set rules. Criteria that they need to take into account when they judge a piece of writing. Sara Quin said it during the post-game show — that in the end “it’s a job” — they had criteria and she had to work within those rules. I can’t, and won’t, say I agree with her choice, but I like that she worked within the rules of the game and that she took her job seriously. That everyone had a different idea of what those rules were is clear, though, and problematic.

I’ve been getting really caught up in this, so want to take a step back. I don’t want to nit-pick every little bit of this, because (thank god) other people are offering up reportage and play-by-play of what happened yesterday and today. There are some really great blogs out there talking about the competition now, and about the books, and giving their really smart comments and  analysis. Do a tag search, and you’ll find tens of sites, all with interesting fresh things to say about this show.

I’m more interested in a comment that Debbie Travis made in the post-game show, about a conversation she had with Ami McKay. I’m paraphrasing, but she said that Ami told her there’s a “code” of conduct — that authors don’t talk down other author’s books. Jason McBride wrote a great article about this in the December 2010 Quill & Quire. His question was “Is honest criticism possible in the tight-knit world of CanLit, where everybody knows everybody else?” and it’s a good question to ask. It’s pertinent to this space, here, because I know the whole Canada Reads gameplay thing has made it very difficult for people in the literary community. That difficulty trickles down to little wee blogs like Box761 — I can get 300 hits on a posting, and not a single comment. People don’t want to talk about it, not out loud, anyway, and certainly not in public.

Debbie Travis said it herself — that her job was to say what the writers can’t. That said, though, did Debbie or any of the other panelists do that? I think not. It was an exercise in diplomacy, all around. Even when one of the panelists didn’t like a book (or even finish it), their stock phrase was “it didn’t move me” or “it’s not my thing”.  Not a single person there said “the writing wasn’t great, and I wonder how it got into this contest” …. something I’ve wondered about a couple of these books (and no, I’m not going to tell you which ones).

Instead, they latched on to these ridiculous arguments about how x book is better because it will help teenagers read more, or it will encourage more people to go into trades… wtf? Since when is Canada Reads about making teenagers and “semi-illiterates” interested in reading? Since when does that mean we dumb down the entire canon of great literature in Canada? That we privilege “easy reads” over great writing? Argh.

What has bothered me from the very beginning is this sense I get that all of this is just so much filler… something to drive hits to their site.  Someone, somewhere, in the bowels of CBC decided that hits to the site and tweets with the #canadareads hashtag were the indicators of success for this process. The part of this competition that got the least amount of air time was the books themselves. I know what each author thinks is a great gift for christmas, and I know more about what some random Canada Reads “team” thinks of the books than I care to know. I read about the Canada Reads Dinner Party Contest, and what five select bloggers think about Canada Reads blah blah blah. It was incessant, the noise coming from the Canada Reads portal.

What I didn’t see, until day two or three of the actual competition, was anyone really talking about the books. And before you think I’m just snarky for the fun of it, I want to go on record here –it wasn’t all that bad.  On Days 2 and 3 I wasn’t able to listen to it in real time (life intruded), so I was able to have a leisurely stroll through the replays, and it felt almost-kinda-maybe like they were sorta-almost getting to the point where there was some interesting commentary on the books themselves. Jian Ghomeshi was really great (though seems ambitious — is he bucking for a tv show?) and he moderated it ably. He wasn’t great at hiding his biases, but that’s okay. The debaters were — by the end of the competition — doing better at actually discussing the books themselves. In fact, during the post-game show, I found them all to be very appealing and smart. During Day 3’s pre-show live audio feed, they were delightful and real. I liked them by the end of it all.

I am swayed, against my will almost, by the comments in the live chat — people wrote things like “I could barely sleep last night because of anticipation” (weird), and “love the talk about canlit, this is great!” and “I’m going to go out and buy these books”… these are things that I cannot deny. Canada Reads does have a strong influence. All the more reason, though, to take seriously their responsibility toward keeping the tone of it respectful, of not selling out to the lowest common denominator, and of not making a spectacle of themselves just to get hits.

Things like this drive me crazy (from Facebook today):

Just like all 10-year old children, Canada Reads needs to understand that any attention is not good attention.  They could take all of that frenetic social media energy and use it for good. Respectful, author-empowering, calm, informative “edutainment” (shudder. I couldn’t think of another way to say it. Forgive me) that will by its very nature help Canada read more.

This has been a difficult post to write. I despise the frantic, empty,  exclamation mark-happy prattle that they’re serving up. I abhor the Hunger Games-ishness of it all, and find myself wanting to tell the grown ups over at CBC what their kids are doing while they aren’t looking. I find it impossibly frustrating that by all accounts this has been the most “successful” Canada Reads ever — largely because they are gauging that success by counting hits and click-throughs and memberships in the CBC Book Club, etc. I am torn, because while I complain about all of this, I also bought all five books and read them and found myself delighted by a few of them. I saw the chat scrolling down, full of people emailing from all over Canada and beyond… I saw that it was really something that people loved. I don’t really get it, but I’m willing to concede it.

I haven’t been slagging on Canada Reads for all these months for no reason. It’s because I really thought — and still do — that they could be doing it better. That whether they like it or not, the CBC is in the position of great power to shape culture, to further appreciation of writing, and to model respectful behaviour toward those who create that culture that CBC is disseminating.

Next up? The Bookies. Sigh.

Essential. Accessible. Whatever.

With some trepidation I chose today to watch the Hunger Games online — live video feed plus chat (moderated by Hannah Classen and Brian Francis).

I was planning on blogging about it today, right after the big event but, well… I painted my bathroom instead. Then I did some laundry, played with the dogs, trolled the internet, you know.

Yeah, it was that interesting.

Good point, Box 761

I found myself distracted by the inane commentary of the live chat — I spent some fascinated moments looking to see what Brian Francis was going to paraphrase; I started sending comments, just to see if they’d post them (see above). It was kind of fun, in a slighty nauseating kind of way.

Worried that I was going to lose some of it. I started cutting and pasting, just so I could go back and enjoy it all later… insightful comments about the whole Canada Reads process like one from a listener/emailer named Aaron, who asked:

What does the winner of this get?

Oh dear.

And really, aside from amusing myself with the online chat stuff, I did listen, really I did. I’ve made this topic a bit of a speciality of the house, these past few months, and I do a lot of thinking about it. Aside from rummaging around  my own big brain, I’ve been finding some bloggers/writers who are writing some pretty interesting stuff about #canadareads lately, as well.

I mentioned the Walrus article in a previous post — essential reading, I think (more on that word, essential, later), and after much quiet out in the Districts (a Hunger Games reference, fyi) people are finally starting to talk. Charlotte Ashley over at Inklings has been writing some really great, funny and honest stuff. Her exasperation is a breath of fresh air.  Bonnie Stewart, social media maven, wrote some great commentary here today in her blog. I like this, and I love the fresh, irreverent… frustration I hear in these voices.  We’re all bookish sorts, we all love writing, reading, reading about writing — all of it. And what I am starting to hear is a sense of loss — where is the respect, the dignity that writing should have?  What is the CBC doing to contribute to meaningful commentary about literature in this country? Is Canada Reads doing it?

Nah. I can’t even go into depth on this one right now. It makes me tired and bores me. I’ve said it over and over again. Watching that train wreck today was like, I dunno… watching a pretend show about books. It was like a sitcom book panel — you had a smart and earnest young woman, a driven “career gal”, a business man, a sports guy (“life is a battle!”), and an Aboriginal actor/director. After an agonizingly long introductory session (with cheesy voiced-over slideshows for those watching online) with awkward speechifying, they finally got to the point in the show where they were supposed to, you know, debate.

I must have nodded off for a moment because the next thing I knew, they were talking about books being “accessible” and “popular” and then some of them seemed to think that the point of the show was to discuss “getting kids reading”…. Nowhere did I hear anyone even attempt to qualify what “essential” means. I’ve been waiting for that for a while now, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that it continues to go unproblematized. So what if the entire shebang is based on these books being “essential”, right?

In keeping with my interest in the peripheral commentary, I saw the following on Facebook this evening:

"Gateway book"?

I think there’s a whooooooole lot of confusion in that post. (Where do they get their stats, and help me out here — is “semi-illiterate” better or worse than “semi-literate”?) I get what they are trying to say, but it’s a cobbled together mish-mash of ideas that culminates in the Grand-daddy of all concepts.

I refer, of course, to that of the “Gateway Book”.

Holy mother of all things literary, what the heck is that? I have no doubt that the person who wrote that post thought they were making some really valid points. Some of those points were voiced by our celebrity panel earlier today. For some reason, all of a sudden, books aren’t about you know, craft, or art

Books are now about being “accessible” (which I guess in our culture now means “easy”?).  At this point, I would be happy if they went back to talking about “essential” — somehow that’s less offensive to me.  “Accessible” means “easily approached or entered” (according to my quick but hilariously apt google search for a definition).  At least “essential” implies worth of some sort. In my world, “accessible” means that all people are able to access the material, not that the book is easy for “semi-illiterate” people to understand.

I'll bet she's reading Lemire's book right now!

But. um. Gateway book? hee hee. What’s next, reading chapter books? Staying up all hours of the night reading?  OMG, what if they start to read… poetry.  It’s like Reefer Madness, but with words. You know, it seems harmless at first, you let them read a few picture books, some comics, then a graphic novel… then all hell breaks loose — they’re reading everything and don’t care who knows it!

It’s as if writers (and Canada Reads judges) are now the social workers of the reading world. They have to get those kids reading, and it has to be easy, that goes without saying.

 

Hm. Where was I?

Sorry, so easy to get carried away. There’s almost too much to think about here, and so little time. Tomorrow this will start all over again. We will hear Georges say that life is a battle. We will see Ali Velshi do his thing —  slyly clever schtick-y sound bites that upon reflection don’t actually say much. Debbie Travis — successful mogul Debbie — will continue to slide her eyes down and sideways and tell us how nervous she is. Lorne Cardinal will be thoughtful but not forceful (I almost forgot he was on it for a moment there). Sara Quin will be articulate and free to speak her mind, and flush with the power of being a swing vote.

Who’s going to get kicked off tomorrow? I think they must be going in reverse order, from best book down, so I think Carol Shield’s finely realized and beautiful book Unless will be the next to go (in my mind they were tied for 1st place). I don’t like it, but there you go.  Essex County is a great book, and it made me think about novels and the creative process in ways that many other books haven’t in a long time.

Personally, I’m pretty sure that none of those five books are the “essential” book of the decade. Maybe someday we’ll all have to have a little chat about that — which books we think are essential.

First, lets define essential though, okay?

 

10:28

Description: http://cdnmo.coveritlive.com/media/avitars/defaultavitar.gifDescription: http://cdnsl.coveritlive.com/templates/coveritlive/images/spacer.gif

Brian Francis:

“Haunting connections between the characters…cinematic.” Sara

Monday February 7, 2011 10:28 Brian Francis

10:28

Description: http://cdnmo.coveritlive.com/media/avitars/php614AmScbc-100.JPGDescription: http://cdnsl.coveritlive.com/templates/coveritlive/images/spacer.gif

Hannah Classen:

And she didnt’ even need all the time!

Monday February 7, 2011 10:28 Hannah Classen

10:28

Description: http://cdnmo.coveritlive.com/media/avitars/defaultavitar.gifDescription: http://cdnsl.coveritlive.com/templates/coveritlive/images/spacer.gif

Brian Francis:

Lorne’s turn.

Monday February 7, 2011 10:28 Brian Francis

10:29

Description: http://cdnsl.coveritlive.com/templates/coveritlive/images/spacer.gif

[Comment From Aaron Rodgers Aaron Rodgers : ]

What does the winner of this get?

Oooh! the anticipation…

Can’t wait to see what those scamps at CBC have up their sleeves for the CBC Canada Reads extravaganza next week. Read a great article in Walrus Magazine the other day, by one Jeet Heer. Aside from my blog (of course), you should read this in preparation for the Games. Good to do some homework.

My homework is to finish reading The Bone Cage — I think it’s a strong contender for a number of reasons, and I’ve thought this since before reading the book… it’s just that Angie Abdou seems to have the most coordinated PR effort. She’s genial and enthusiastic and is everywhere on social media. She is, I think, this year’s Katniss.

My last post garnered some fascinating comments (offline). These comments suggested that my gripes should not be limited to what I’ve been discussing lately, but that I need to “go higher”. I thought about that, and realize that there is some merit —  that while what I’ve been talking about is all valid, it is merely a symptom of a more systemic issue. That said, it’s the books coverage, and more specifically the Canada Reads contest, that really get my goat. And, really, it was almost too easy. Who can resist that?

Other than that, nothing much going on here at present. Just trying to dig ourselves out of the omnipresent snow.

Graphic scenes

Oh, dear readers, Box 761 has been busy these past weeks.

Crazy busy.

Work crews in and on my house, Mr. 761 home from KAF, etc.  The work crews are great — I love the idea of having a sound roof without holes, and I love the idea of having walls that do not house wet insulation. Love it. I was willing to move out of my bedroom to facilitate the work, and International Student 761 had to vacate her room as well. Necessary chaos. Acceptable chaos, even.

Chaos, nonetheless.

Even sleeping in my office is okay. If I want to send a midnight fax, all I have to do is roll over and it’s done. Fast Eddie, my contractor, is funny and talks more than I do, but still manages to get the work done. I like him.

But I haven’t actually read a book in a week. I’m getting itchy. I’ve read bits and pieces, but haven’t had a the opportunity to string some moments together and have a nice long read. I miss it. I got my copy of Jeff Lemire’s Essex County in the mail a while ago and after reading about 10 engrossing pages, I put it somewhere so it wouldn’t get covered in drywall dust. Now it’s lost. I’m reduced to re-reading Dean Koontz novels I find stuck on random shelves in my office (within rolling distance, of course).

Lemire’s book is on the Canada Reads Hunger Games Top 5, in case you’ve forgotten. My mentioning it here isn’t favoritism (though I have no problem with that, really);  it’s just that it’s so… pretty.  As an object, it delights me, and I haven’t even read it yet. The heft of it is just right, the trim size, perfect. I love the cover and the card stock the cover is printed on. I love the thing, I really do, and I’ll admit that I smoothed my cheek lovingly on said satiny-slubby cover when I unwrapped the book. I love my e-books, but some things are just meant to be held in hard copy. Graphic novels may be one of those things. I’m new to graphic novels (this month, though, I’ve read one Angel  and 5 Buffy Season 8 graphic novels, and have secreted Essex County into a safe and as yet undisclosed location (after fondling it, yes).

We’ll see how I feel once I read it, but right now, it’s one of my favorite things. I wish I could find where I put it.

So. My inner geeky fangirl is showing herself today. I know a couple of things: I love Buffy Season 8, and Jeff Lemire’s book fascinates me. I don’t remember the last time that I ordered a book with so much curiosity and anticipation. I’m really looking forward to reading that book.

I’m looking forward to figuring out how and where it fits in the literary canon. I’m really looking forward to seeing how this book is defended and attacked by the Hunger Games judges. I’m curious about how they will, in fact, judge. Are they going to be talking about why it’s an “essential” book? Is it the “best” one? Is it “lit-er-ah-ture“? The Games begin 7-9 February, with a new wrinkle: live stream/chat.

I foresee all sorts of mayhem on those three days, and many offenses to my sensibilities in the days leading up to it. I will offer more on that another day, but Box 761 has some work to do offline at present.

Free lunch, with a side of contempt.

You know that old saw about there not being any such thing as a “free lunch”? I’m guessing that the contestants in the Canada Reads 2011 Hunger Games are thinking about that right about now.

They are everywhere. I see them tweeting and facebooking and getting themselves “out there” like crazy. I see the producers of the Games have them singing for their suppers: “Holiday Gift Guides”? please. I wonder if they’re paid for that work by the CBC? (odds are, they aren’t.) There are podcasts and interviews and articles and tweets…. it’s kind of crazy making, really. I’m starting to feel a bit sorry for them.

Not too much — really, it’s a great thing to be nominated and I’ll bet that it’s helped sales of their books. Always a good thing. I wonder, though, just how much dancing they’re doing? How much of their time is now taken up shilling for the CBC?

I’m being a bit harsh here — perhaps belabouring it a bit to make a point. But here’s the thing, and it’s the same thing that’s been bugging me all along: where is the dignity in this? Why is it that the authors not only create the art, but then have to run around selling it too? Since when do they have to write freaking holiday gift guides in order for the Hunger Games overseers to publicize their books?

I wonder what Flannery O’Connor would have put on her holiday gift guide or if she would have tweeted, tongue in cheek about how a “good book is hard to find”. Oh, how droll that would be, no? It would have helped the Hunger Games producers a lot, and would have been completely in keeping with the snide/sly/self-referential tone of the CBC Hunger Games’ branding.

Speaking of which. Can I just say that my deep antipathy to the over-all tone of the CBC Canada Reads site — nay, the entire CBC Books portal — is growing daily. Sometimes I go there and cannot believe my eyes. I’m not sure what bothers me the most, but there are days when I just can’t manage to get past the tone of it. The “voice” is very clearly that of a twenty-something smarty pants who isn’t half as smart as she thinks she is. It is derisive and sly and just so insulting.

Case in point. A recent smarty-pants post with a romance novel theme said the following:

With so many romance writers out there, I began to think: How hard can it be to whip one of those novels together? Not very, I told myself! There are how-to guides are all over the Internet. I’m smart. I’m creative. I can write coherent sentences. Surely, I can write a romance novel in a mere month. What better way to get intimately acquainted with this genre than to write one?

Then I remembered that I am lazy.

So, CBC Book Clubbers, I need your help. We’re going to write this romance novel together. I’ve consulted the eHarlequin guide to How to Write the Perfect Romance and learned the most important things involved in writing a successful romance novel. With that in mind, let’s begin!

I’m as much of a book snob as the next person, but I’ve grown to respect the act of writing a little too much to let this pass without comment. I don’t get the derisive tone, I really don’t. Does she think this will endear her to the 78.4 million people who read romance novels every year, or to the authors who (even if you don’t like the genre) are crafting work that those (let me say it again) 78.4 million people read? This is a craft, and as usual she is lazily contemptuous of the creators of that craft.

It’s not about the books at all, is it? The point she really seems to be trying to make is that she could do it, if she weren’t so darn lazy.

This isn’t the first time that being lazy has been trotted out by this particular  writer. We’ve met Erin Balser before, no? It was she who I discussed in this post.  Perhaps it’s worth showing you again her illuminating biography from her site:

This is who the CBC hired to help produce their books coverage? I’m still trying to figure out how being lazy is an endearing quality. Lazy is what made her link to only Quill & Quire reviews of the books in the Top 40, regardless of the quality of those reviews (spotty). Lazy is what creates this groundswell of contempt toward the CBC on the part of readers/listeners. Lazy is what makes authors write (for free) holiday gift guides instead of finding thoughtful commentary on their books to post. Lazy is being snarktastic without substance to back you up.

Thing is, she’s a product of her age, and has created a niche for herself. She was probably hired by people a generation removed from her who don’t actually quite “get” the whole social media/twitter thing — who think she’s really connected because she and her friends all create the impression that they are a movement by incestuously (re)tweeting one another’s work and commenting on one another’s snarktastic websites.  Maybe they think that this is how things work now…. but what she must think is insouciant irreverence has turned the corner, most of the time, into contempt. Perhaps she doesn’t realize it? Who knows.

After I wrote about the CBC Canada Reads game a few times, I got this comment from Bonnie Stewart, educator, writer, and social media maven:

re. Canada Reads, i think my biggest issue is with the CBC’s apparent decision to leave the whole shebang in the hands of the tragically-hip 25 year old who set the tone. she treated it all like a big, ironic game and her ‘condescending cheerleader’ schtick has, IMO, set the case for social media in the arts in Canada back by 10 years. she did not have the professionalism to lead the contest, even if it was her idea. and she didn’t have the good sense god gave chickens to ensure that big novels that had ALREADY been on Canada Reads were set respectfully aside to make some limelight for, i dunno, the unexpected. she neither understands social media nor promotions nearly as well as she thinks she does, and my respect for the CBC is negatively impacted by her handling of this.

So, it’s not just me. There’s a groundswell out there of growing contempt for this type of arts… marketing (reportage? branding? I don’t even know what to call it.)  My feeling, whenever I read something she’s written is that no matter the subject, it’s really an exercise in selling Erin Balser.

I’m going to keep writing about this stuff. Odds are I’m going to see things that I disagree with. Reading the drivel that keeps getting put out there under the umbrella of the CBC Books makes me crazy. Can you see Erin and Eleanor Wachtel at lunch, talking literature? Or even with Shelagh Rogers — what a great meeting of the mind that would be.

Eventually, though, I’ll have had enough. I do want the CBC to know that it’s because she’s lazy that I’ll have stopped listening and reading.

I was, um, double-booked

Life can get really busy, really fast. Or  it can be slow, but still somehow not have any room in it, you  know? Box 761 is full these days, but operating in slowtime.

Since I last I wrote, I have somehow become a “book blogger”. I didn’t realize I was one, but a few people referred to me thusly, and I guess it’s what I am. In part, anyway. I’m working on a separate site for stuff that’s not about books or related to book bloggery in some way. That will appear some time soon, though I’m not sure when…. stay tuned. I have the domain name, but haven’t done the work around it.

Sometimes when life gets that slow-but-no-room feel to it, I find that I can with some effort actually get a monstrous amount of work done. Other times, well, I have to take a month off (like I just did). Today, though, a reporter from Canadian Press interviewed me about e-books. I figured I might as well discuss it here, now that I’m being interviewed and all.

So. Where was I? Ah yes. When last I wrote, I could feel a long treatise coming on. It was called “What is a Book?” and I started crafting long sentences in my head while in the shower, and finding all sorts of fabulous bricolage from my daily life that made its way into the shower-monologue.  Then it got kind of old — in the way things go these days, the Giller seems a long time ago and all the issues seem old, and solved. My problem was that nothing got down onto, er, paper (for lack of a better word).

And there’s the rub. What I was thinking of writing wasn’t dependent on the medium. What I was thinking needed to be articulated, but I wasn’t even fussy about the delivery method, as long as it was eventually articulated. It seems to me that much of the angsty teeth gnashing of the past month or so is built around this question, “what is a book?“.  At first blush, though, it seems, I dunno, too obvious somehow. I mean, duh, we all know what a book is, right?

Well, my dictionary (the kind in a book, not one online) tells me that a book is

n 1.a number of printed or written pages bound together align one edge and usually protected by covers. 2. a written work or composition, such as a novel, technical manual, or dictionary.

In order to find that definition from my Collins Concise English Dictionary 3/e, (c)1992 I had to scan the shelves in my hallway for a few minutes. It has been a while since I used that book. The covers are on it, but the hard spine has been detached (though for some reason I kept it, and placed it right at the end of “L”). There’s one of those sticky arrows pointing to “serendipity” on page 1226. You get the idea — it’s a well-used book. If I recall correctly, I took it from the stacks at HarperCollins the year this edition was published — I think it was intended for a client, but ended up on my shelves instead; such is the way of publishing….

What I like about the snippet of definition above is that it describes both the physical object “book”, and the idea of “book”. I think those two things conflate in our minds when we think of it, and it’s hard to separate them, but often when we use the term “book”, we are actually talking about only one or the other of those definitions — not both.

Otherwise, we wouldn’t have had half the kerfuffle with Gaspereau and The Sentimentalists, right?

Since the time when that lovely dog eared and downy dictionary mysteriously found its way into my possession, the word “book” has expanded and contracted. Even then, though (way back in the mists of the early ’90s), we were talking about digital books — they weren’t in any way useful or accessible yet, but they were already in the discussion, and (tiresomely) feared. The internet was barely extant, and that was, I think, the year that I finally decided that I needed a computer monitor that had color.

Now, in the second decade of the 21st Century, “book” is the word we use for a digitally delivered document. It’s what we call anything that has a discrete beginning and end and is written by someone, right? I liken it to how we all of us, of a certain age, still call a group of songs an “album” ….

I say I wanted to “get it on paper” when, of course, what I really  mean is that I wanted to put it on my blog and sent it out into the ether. I say wanted to “write” it, when really I was typing — a much different process, and one that I find almost mystically rhythmic — like playing some sort of weird piano that puts out words instead of notes. If punctuation is score (thank you John Metcalf), then my keyboard is my instrument.

(c) J. Langevin Levack

So then, what would the product of this activity be?

A book.

Do I care if it’s electronic? No.

Do I care if it’s artisanal? No.

Do I care if it’s written in crayon on cardboard shirt-bards? No.

I do, however, care if  it’s well written.  I care that it delights me and makes me think and makes me want to tell people about it.  If it isn’t something that delights me, then I’m… uh, up the boohai (see photo, above). If I like it, I might buy both the e-book and the hard copy, who knows?

I know that all the brouhaha around The Sentimentalists is probably old hat now, but this has been bugging me a little bit. This is the truncated box761 version of my “What is a Book?” treatise. I’m kind of over it, but want to make sure that’s it’s clear. Ebooks are not the end of literature. They aren’t even the end of physical books (see M. Wente’s ridiculous fluff piece, here). There’s room for everything as long as there are people with abstract thoughts.

Now all I need to figure out is “What is a Book Blogger?” and I’ll be all set.