If Canadian literature is to survive, it needs to develop a strong national presence.
By Hannah Bellamy
Photos by Connor Stefanison
Canadian literature is approached with almost as much diversity as the nation itself. For some, Canadian literature means the Farley Mowat short story they were made to read in school. For some, it is just a fragment of our national presence, but for others, it is the most valuable presence we have to offer. In late October, six significant contributors to the Canadian literary firmament spoke before a sold out audience at the Vancouver Arts Club Theatre. These included Margaret Atwood, Emily Schultz, Dionne Brand, Louise Dennys, Aritha Van Herk, and Graham Gibson. The discussion continued a question that Atwood asked in 1972 with Survival: what is Canadian literature, and why should we be concerned about it”
Atwood suggested that survival is Canada’s national identity, much like the frontier is to our southern neighbours and the island is to Britain. The panelists asked what has become of Canadian literature since Atwood’s initial considerations.
The perspectives of the panelists were varied, but seemed indicative of the current discussions about Canadian literature. Ours is a moment in which the slow and silent assault on Canadian arts is a problem. We currently do not have a government that supports the arts as much as many have long expected. This co-dependence on government was made especially obvious when a non-profit organization, Canadian Conference for the Arts, was shut down at the end of October as a result of losing government funding. The loss of this organization leaves us with a few questions: should the government be prioritizing the arts and if not, what are alternative non-governmental forms arts organizations can take on?
The changing forms of literature — how it can be created, accessed, and shared — were alluded to when Emily Shultz, the youngest of the panelists, was asked about young Canadian writers. As founder of an independent online literary magazine, Schultz sees potential in the internet for young writers and readers. Because of its accessibility, the internet provides a platform for Canadian literature to make its way into the awareness of young people, unlike the young generation when Atwood’s Survival was released.
[pullquote] The loss of this organization leaves us with a few questions: should the government be prioritizing the arts and if not, what are alternative non-governmental forms arts organizations can take on?[/pullquote]
Author Graham Gibson also spoke about the importance of getting young people reading. More specifically, he called attention to Canadian education and the national content it provides for children. One member of the audience asked the panel what Canadian literature should be taught in schools. When panelist Aritha Van Herk suggested the new Oxford Anthology of Canadian Literature, another audience member apologetically interrupted to say that, while teachers like her are aware of the new Canadian literature available, they simply do not have the funding to buy it for their students. For this reason, the non-Canadian canon prevails. This is a problem in itself: without sufficient funding to Canadian educators, Canadian literature has a hard time making its way onto anyone’s reading list.
The discussion repeatedly returned to political and institutional involvement in Canadian literature, specifically the recent regulatory attempts to censor internet content. This is a problem because it restricts readers from accessing the already-inaccessible Canadian literature that exists. Panelist and publisher Louise Dennys claimed that any government worth anything should support carrying national values internationally, and that literature is the best way to do this.
The panel discussed other possibilities for the Canadian literary identity that have emerged in recent decades. In contrast to Atwood’s survival identity, Dennys, who emigrated from Britain in her 20s, suggested that the identity of Canadian literature is exotic and sexy. This is perhaps a reaction to the mosaic-like quality of the divisive national identity: in a country as multicultural as Canada, there are difficulties in defining what is “Canadian.”
This was epitomized in Brand’s insistence that the identity of Canadian literature is heterogeneity. Gibson attributes the diversity of Canadian literature to the freedom of not having a singular national identity, yet the diversity that creates Canadian literature seems to be all the identity necessary for international respect.
Perhaps the most pressing issue that arose from the panel was where Canadian literature is going. The following day on Twitter, Atwood announced: “Reading The Blondes by Emily Schultz: wow+haha+eek!” Maybe she’s onto something about the relation of the internet and the future of young, emerging Canadian literature: it’s still young, with a lot of growing ahead. Maybe soon it will be properly funded and represented, so that it may speak for our diverse nation.
