Canada Reads Hunger Games 2011

761 Words about Canada Reads

/ jlevack / 10 Comments

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.

Oooh! the anticipation…

/ jlevack / Leave a comment

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.

Free lunch, with a side of contempt.

/ jlevack / 3 Comments

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.

A little green around the, er, Gillers

/ jlevack / 6 Comments

I went on a little vacation to New England last week, and when I got home it felt like all hell had broken loose in the Canadian literary scene. Incidentally, I was in a great bookstore in Portland ME called Longfellow Books and was very happy to see quite a few Canadian-authored books there. Beautiful store that bills itself as “a fiercely independent community bookstore”. Too bad most of the Canadian books were second-hand — I’d love to see the authors get recompensed for their work, but am happy at least that they are leaking over the border and perhaps gaining audience in the States.

It has been an interesting time for Canadian literature — the Canada Reads thingy ended and the Top Ten were chosen. All great books, I’m sure (still have to read a few) but I still harbor some serious reservations about the way the whole thing happened. I was on the CBC Canada Reads blog today, reading the most recent prattling from the producer and I just can’t get past some of the commentary. She came up with a Top Ten list of “Goodies” that came out of Canada Reads 2011, and number 10 was

Goodie #10: Friendships!

The Canada Reads Top 40 authors are adorable. They’ve forged friendships on Twitter, have retweeted each other, recommended each other’s books. It’s a fantastic, vibrant and unexpected conversation that popped up, and we’re thrilled by it. Canada Reads brings people together. They shared headstand tips, baking tips, and invited each other to lobster boils. It makes me sad that on Tuesday, there will only be 10.

Yeah.

Adorable.

That’s what they’re all aiming for. When they sat, alone with their thoughts and were deep in the process of birthing a novel, they were hoping that someday the producer of Canada Reads 2011 would call them adorable because they tweeted-for-their-lives while simultaneously trying to keep their dignity during the Canada Reads Hunger Games. I have no doubt that some of what she writes is true — it did bring some people together. I made quite a few new Twitter-friends in part because of my commentary on this, and am very happy about that. This has certainly opened up some dialogue about the state of the written word in Canada.

What it didn’t do, though, is offer those authors any real dignity. Thank goodness, as a group, they rose to this ridiculous challenge and all managed to retain the dignity they came to it with. One blogger cited a comment from the Canada Reads website, which said:

“I’m usually not one to eat crow, but I was wrong when I snarked at the “self-promoters”. I’ve had a chance over many hours to follow their tweets and visit their websites and I’ve discovered a whole lot of grace and creativity, as well as support for their fellow artists (from Angie Abdou’s video in support of Steven Heighton’s Every Lost Country to Leo McKay’s reason #17 for voting for his book). I hang my head and say I am sorry.”

My only issue here is that the grace exhibited was not because of the circumstances, but in spite of them.

So, congratulations to those Ten who made the short list (a special holla to Ami McKay, who lives close by).

And congratulations to those Top 40-ers too. I have a plan, and will be (re)reading all 40 of those long-listed, but it might take a while. I gave up reading them in order — just too structured for me. Next up for me is Leo McJay Jr.’s book, Twenty-Six. Thank you for your videos Leo, and thank you for your wit.

I’m also planning on not listening in to the Canada Reads Battle in February. I’m going to try to stay away, but I’m not sure if I’ll be able to do it. Right now, just reading their frigging blog is making me feel kind of queasy.

Speaking of feeling queasy, how about that Giller prize?

I have to say, I’m a bit bemused by the controversy. It has been fascinating to watch the past few days. Johanna Skibsrud’s first novel The Sentimentalists (Gaspereau Press) has made a splash for a few reasons — it won the Giller Prize, and her publisher will not be able to provide a large print run for that post-prize frenzy of book buying Canadians generally indulge in. And it’s a big frenzy — when a “bestseller” in Canada generally means 5000 copies, the Giller win can boost those sales up to 70- or 75,000 copies. That’s a big boost.

There are a lot of reasons for this whole situation being problematic. Gaspereau is known for crafting objects of beauty; objects that take time and care to create. They are hand-produced, and lovely. There was an original print run of 800 copies, and they are very scarce now. You cannot expect to find many hard copies around, and while they are taking orders, they can produce (at best) a 1000 copies a week. Even that seems ambitious, frankly. Gaspereau Press plans to concentrate on fulfilling the orders of independent bookstores first, rather than those of “big box” stores.

I bought an e-book version on Kobo. I was happy to see it, hadn’t really expected to find it in e-version, but on a whim typed it in on my iPad and 30 seconds and $9.99 later, I owned the book.

The artisanal copy costs $27.95 and you can order it online, but only through paypal or a personal cheque. There’s a fairly complicated procedure where you email them the information — which book you want, etc., and then the email connected to your Paypal. you can’t pay from Paypal directly. You cannot use a credit card. Their online retail page is here. There is no information on their site regarding how long it will take to receive a copy of this book. I would imagine that they are in a bit of a shock.

I want to make it clear that I respect Gaspereau Press very much. I have visited the press before, and own several of their very lovely books. I get that their commitment is to creating a piece of art. Jack Illingworth, in an excellent article in the National Post, wrote

“This may seem like willful eccentricity on the part of Andrew Steeves and Gary Dunfield, Gaspereau’s co-publishers. It’s actually something much more interesting: a commitment to a thoughtful, rigorous, refined mode of publishing. While publishing is usually discussed as a business, or an industry, all of the finest small press publishers practice it as an art form. The books that they choose to publish aren’t chosen to fill out a season with a handful of products that stand a reasonable chance of selling. Their lists are cultural projects, embodying a few individuals’ ideas of what literature can be.”

He goes on to say that “Gaspereau, and the handful of other companies that operate in a similar way, take this conceit to its logical extreme: both the process through which their books are made, and the physical objects that result, are inextricable from their editorial objectives.”

“Conceit” is a fun word here, because I think we can use it both ways. I get that they do things a certain way and that they have a Philosophy here. I wonder, though, what the Author thinks of this? I know authors. It’s hard to be one. It’s often lonely, and it’s not exactly well-paying, right? So here’s this young woman — a success artistically with poetry and short stories under her belt and now a novel that wins the freaking Giller and they can’t meet demand. Not only that, they won’t meet demand. The refuse to create anything other than an artisanal product. And when they do make more, they’ll service Independent bookstores first. And if you order it online you have to write a cheque and mail it to them?

I’d bet that to the Author this book is a book regardless of its form. It’s her book and she’s been awarded a very prestigious award for it, but now her publishers can’t/won’t produce the things, not in any way that would get this book, her creation, into the hands of people who will exchange money for the pleasure of reading it.

I’m kind of shocked that I could get an electronic version of this book. I don’t know how that stuff works really — I left publishing before electronic/digital rights were involved in any contracts I worked with. One of my peeves is that I can’t find e-books of Canadian authors — not half as often as I would like. I read books, all kinds of books — hard copy, e-book, sometimes both versions of the same title. Whatever.

It feels like Gaspereau (who I really like, really I do) is confusing their role here with hers. They are bookmakers. They make books and they are artists at it. She writes books. While the form and the function may be inextricably linked within the rarified air of Gaspereau, we here in the cheap seats still think it’s a work of art, even if it’s printed off my HP inkjet. Even if it’s written in crayon on a paper bag. Even if it’s an ebook. 

All of those things are the art, at least the art that matters at this point, to the author who created it. It is her publisher’s job to make sure that this art is disseminated.

Over the past two days since she won, there has been a lot of commentary on this. I’ve been surfing it, and it feels like it’s getting bigger. It feels like it’s turning a bit icky in some ways… I’ve read some very derisive blogs about Gaspereau Press (hey,  they can do what they want, right? I might not agree, but they are ideologues, and I love idealogues — you always know where they stand), and even a few comments about how it doesn’t really “matter” if Skibsrud loses some sales because she’s won that big prize and has a fat advance from a UK publisher (um, prizes are taxable — I think — and advances are just that – an advance, like, a loan). That she’d be “fine” regardless.

I’m not going to get into that debate. I’m just speaking now about my initial impressions. I haven’t even finished the book, and at the moment I’m not entirely sure I like it. I think that it needed more editing. More on that later, I guess, but here’s a review that says  pretty well how I feel about it right now. When I finish the book, maybe I’ll feel differently, I dunno. None of that matters. If I’d been able to go out and buy the artisanal copy, I probably would   have bought two copies on spec (one for me, one for a gift). As it is, I bought an e-book for around ten bucks and saved myself $45.91.

How many other people did the same, or can’t buy the e-book because they don’t have the technology? How many people do you think will buy this book later, in an independent bookstore when it finally becomes available? How many people are going to mail a cheque or send an email with Paypal info? Ugh.

I think quite a few people just won’t buy either version, and it seems that the “conceit” mentioned earlier might be one that costs the author more than she bargained for. Gaspereau Press can live with the concessions they’ve made to their Art, but did Johanna Skibsrud choose to make those same concessions?

My congratulations to Ms. Skibsrud on her win.

Clusterwha? and a Poll….

/ jlevack / Leave a comment

Mr. 761 is ex-military. As such, he has a colorful vocabulary that I have found particularly enriching. There are phrases and terms that grad school didn’t teach me (but should have).

The term “clusterfuck” for example.

I can’t help it, I really like that word. It is related to the word “snafu“, which stands for “situation normal, all, er, effed up”. I hate to offend people, but anyone who knows me knows that we all curse like sailors here at Box 761. Or, rather, like airmen. Anyway, clusterfuck (aka “charlie foxtrot”) signifies a few different things, but my favorite definition is this one:

A situation that is totally fucked up, especially as a result of managerial incompetence.

Originally of military origin; a double play on the word “cluster,” both evoking multiple fuckups, as used in the term “cluster bomb,” and evoking the oak leaf or star “cluster” insignia of the [officer] who did the fucking.

Why am I taking you through this potentially offensive vocabulary lesson, you ask? Well, because I have been trying to figure out how to write about CBC Canada Reads, and have been trying to find a way in to the conversation. This topic has kind of taken over box 761, and while I like it and am obviously invested in it, part of me wants Canada Reads to just get their act together so I can write about other stuff — like, the green curry I made for dinner the other night, or how nice it is to have Mr. 761 home on leave from Kandahar. I’d love to write about my ongoing (and quite heart-breaking) search for just the right wall-covering for my bedroom, or my upcoming road trip with the Mr.

I’d like to talk about my trip to Toronto last weekend to see Wicked (not the best show ever, but oh, so steampunkily terrific – full of gears and giant clocks and smoke), what a great travel companion my youngest is, how great it was to see old friends from university days, and about my new boots:

Instead, I find myself getting in another froth about the doings over at CBC.

Last night, an author I know posted on Facebook that he’d been on the CBC Canada Reads site and Lo, (cue angels singing) found the list of the 40 Essential Books up and on the site. His own name was on it, as were, well, 39 others. There was a tag line about Erin “knowing how to read to 6000”, which I assume was the number of votes cast.

Really? That’s all? For crying out loud. There are 34,260,000 million people in this country and only 6000 votes? We should all weep for shame.

When he went back to check again, it was gone. I assume that Ms. Balser or the tech person (if they have one) had been previewing how it was going to look or something? Stupid mistake, and not one you can get away with in this day and age. It was all over Facebook almost immediately.

Then the day finally came. We listened to Jian Ghomeshi’s admittedly very lovely voice read out a random selection of the Top 40, and then when we went to the website like he told us to do (five times he said “go there now” – we counted), we discovered there was no list. It was slated to be up at eleven Toronto time, apparently. It’s a big country, Jian — we were all listening at 11 a.m. Atlantic time. Some authors were named over the air, but not all. Certainly I didn’t expect (or want) you to read out all forty names, Jian, but exhorting us to go to the website when it wasn’t actually loaded was not cool.

FINALLY, it’s up and all is well, right? Nope. Quickly, we realized that while there were indeed 40 books on the list, there were only 37 listed on the poll. Apparently Erin can count to 6000, but not to 40. They took the list down, and when it was up again, those three books were on it, but tagged on to the end, rather than in alpha order with the others. You don’t think that’s going to affect the votes?

Long boring story. I’m  boring myself, really I am. I’m just tired of this, this… tiresome slack-ass lack of respect for Canadian authors. Fine, make it like the Hunger Games. Make it so that it’s a mix of American Idol and Survivor, fine. But stop changing the rules in the middle of the game, stop egging them on with orders to “get cracking” (jeez, that still rankles), and for the love of all things holy try to get this stuff right the first time.

You don’t know how to count? Get someone to help. You don’t know how to put a poll up online? Get someone to help. You mess up and only put 37 on the alphabetical list? Fix it AND put them all in order. You might have to type the whole list out again, but don’t you think that they’re worth it? You don’t think that making it to the Top 40 of all books written in Canada in a decade doesn’t rate retyping the list?

Today on Q Jian Ghomeshi sounded like he was trying to make sure we all knew that it’s just this year that Canada Reads will be in this format. I don’t know if that’s because he’s been keeping an eye on the blogosphere/Twitterverse/CBC website or what, but it did sound as if he were slightly apologetic about this. I see that The (Canada Reads) Life of Brian blog addressed some of the issues that I’ve been bitching about, too.

That’s all good. Really it is. But does it address the overall clusterfuck-ishness of this process?

No. I think not. This truly is a bit of a snafu, seems to me.

I had more I wanted to write, but I’m feeling as if this rant isn’t doing any good. I keep writing the same stuff, in different ways. So instead, I’m going to end this post with two things. First, a heartfelt congratulations to all authors involved in this spectacle. Thank you for writing and thank you for playing this game, with grace.

Second, I have a hankering to do a poll (look familiar?). Here are the rules:

  1. You can vote only once, unless you feel like voting more. (just an aside here… with a Polldaddy poll, you can vote more than once if you change your IP and cookies, or just use a different computer, just sayin’)
  2. I reserve the right to change the rules, at any time
  3. There will be three winning answers. I will post two
  4. If you want this to count, you should get cracking
  5. Write your own answers. Hell, write your own questions. I want to know.

She’ll write things for you, if you like….

/ jlevack / 4 Comments

I started Box 761 unwittingly. Not without forethought, but with a sense of not knowing (or even caring overmuch) where it was going to go. I just wanted to write about what I was thinking. As a result, I’ve felt free enough to write about anything I want, when I want.

A few days ago I felt like writing about the Canada Reads 2011 “Essential” list. That post got more hits than anything I’ve written to date, and changed this blog into an entirely different proposition for me.

I’m a  “stats watcher”. I like to see how many people read what I’ve written. I understand the urge to look at the stats, and I know it must be akin to what an author feels when they have a book published. It feels good. It feels validating. It feels like what you’ve written matters.

I found that with that single post,  my “readership” went up hugely. . It certainly hit a nerve. When I wrote that post, I didn’t do much except sit down and just write. I was responding to one specific post on a CBC blog. I didn’t research it, or even look around to see who else was writing about it — I just wrote it, and wrote it quickly.  Since then, I’ve read some great blogs about Canada Reads: Stephen W. Beattie’s post Canada Reads loses the plot: updated was especially well-written and germane. I felt compelled to write a comment on his post, largely to speak to an earlier comment from Erin Balser, an Associate Producer of Canada Reads.

She wrote, in part (full comment can be found at the link to Mr. Beattie’s blog, above):

I personally think change is good, and we’ll just have to wait and see if it works. I have faith in the reading public that the list will be reflective of what Canada reads or wants to reads or what they want to see on Canada Reads. And if it’s not, well, Beattie, you’ll have something else to write about.

So, thanks to everyone who has discussed, dissected and destroyed this year’s format. I’m loving every minute of it.

And so is everyone else at the CBC. Really.

I need to point out that the “Really.” tagged onto the end of that line just really gets my goat. Her calling him “Beattie” bothers me. Her obvious glee with the way this is shaping up made me sad. Here is the response I left on that site:

I further add that what I find especially difficult for me to watch is that this new format is pitting authors against authors (not, I might add, book against book — it’s a nuance that’s important to point out).

Erin Balser (producer at CBC) points out the connection to “Survivor” here; I take that further and suggest that it’s a Can-lit “Hunger Games”. Balsor’s comment […] seems to me to be just a little bit dismissive. It makes me think of her and her cohorts rubbing their hands together as they snicker over the hoops they’re causing authors to jump through. This isn’t – not any more — about readers. It’s about which author sings loud enough for their supper.

Having already conceived of and created the supper, it seems really unfair to make them beg for it too.

One nugget of information I did glean from Erin Balser’s comment was that she has a blog, called Books in 140 and A Bunch of Other  Fun Things. Here’s a screen dump from her site. It explains, I think, the mindset behind Canada Reads 2011.

 

About Erin Erin Balser grew up in small-town Nova Scotia and somehow ended up living in the downtown core of Toronto, where she drinks too much coffee, tells people she’s a writer, spends all her free time on the internet and writes a lot. She’ll write things for you, if you like. They’ll be nonsensical and filled with snarktastic comments, but she’ll do it for a very low price. She’s a whore like that. About Books in 140 Books in 140 started when Erin decided to validate her book buying addiction by writing “reviews.” Except long reviews are hard. And take time. Erin thought she’d solve this problem by writing reviews in 140 characters on twitter. The book buying validation is solved. The review writing is not. If you want a book to be reviewed, want to submit a guest review, want to be interviewed, or just want to tell Erin how awesome she is, head over to the contact page. If contact pages aren’t your thing, feel free to email Erin! She hearts emails. Review Policy I read what I want, when I want and review what I want, when I want. Books in 140 is as much meant to be a representation of my tastes and reading habits as it is a space to discover new books.

she hearts emails

 

That, my friends, is pretty much my last word on this.

I know that from now on I’ll feel like writing about Canadian fiction much more often than I had before.