“Canada Reads is staging a turf war for 2013, with the five competing books each representing a different region of the country. Those five books will be defended by five celebrity champions and battled down to one winner ­ the book all Canadians should read.”

One of my favourite parts of the extended Canada Reads 2013 ramp-up has been the weekly Twitter chats hosted by CBC Books – one chat focused on each of the five contending books, plus one chat wrapping it all up, looking at common themes, making predictions and so on.

During that final chat, I came to a couple of realizations. What dawned on me then will appreciably inform my perspectives and reactions going into the broadcast (radio, video, liveblog, podcast, Twitter commentary using the #canadareads hashtag, et al) debates from Monday, February 11th to Thursday, February 14th, when a final survivor/winner receives a Canadian book sales Valentine. (You can check out a replay of that final chat here.)

First, it occurred to me that among the five finalist books, there was neither a singular book that captivated me vastly more than the others, nor was there one that aggrieved me as so patently unsuitable, so not in the league of the others or of the overall Canada Reads honour. Indian Horse by Richard Wagamese puts indelible and courageous faces to Canada’s dark chapter of residential schools and their abuses on First Nations families and children. The Age of Hope by David Bergen traces the adult life of a small town Canadian woman from pre-World War II to the 1980s and asks if a life seemingly quietly lived is still rich and fulfilled. Two Solitudes by the late Hugh MacLennan was written in the World War II era and offers still potent reflections on the polarities of English and French Canadian society, traditions, politics and more. Away by Jane Urquhart tells a mystical, folkloric multi-generational tale that travels from Ireland in the 1840s through to contemporary settings in Quebec and Ontario. February by Lisa Moore focuses in heartwrenching and intimate detail on the effects, leaping back and forth in time, of the 1982 Ocean Ranger oil rig disaster on one woman and her family.

Themes of the personal and political intersect in various of the books and are echoed between books. Plot lines, secondary threads or references to everything from prejudice to tragedy to individual vs tribal, social or communal identities to, of course, hockey appear in some form or another in all of the books.

OK, I do have a couple of favourites. To my mind, the descriptions in Indian Horse of the physical exhilaration of hockey played flat-out in bracing cold air on hard ice, playing so vigorously and so joyfully that it becomes a transcendent, healing thing offers one of the most lyrical tributes to the sport – really, to any sport – that I’ve ever read. Page after page, I marvelled as I reread Two Solitudes just a few months ago – having first read it close to 40 years ago – how resonant its themes still are. The book captures vivid divisions and differences brought to life with characters who are if not fully fleshed out are attractive, endearing and compelling. Those divisions include French/English, young/old, rural/urban – and the book contends that ultimately, Canadians want to, can and do transcend them.

How Canadian is it, then, that I feel that all of the Canada Reads finalists could be justifiably and defensibly the winner? That’s either very good – the books are all high calibre, meritorious, resonant, lively and deserving of cross Canada attention and respect – or that’s worrisome. Are they all homogenized or compromised in some way as to be minimally offensive to the broadest cross section of potential readers? I don’t think so. If the #canadareads chats are any indication, there are definite opinions about merit and identification with themes and characters that will surely be grist for the debates. Interestingly and perhaps a bit ironically, it appeared that some of the most vociferous exchanges during the chats were about Hope Koop, who some thought benign, bland, passive, lacking in spirit … but wait, perhaps she’s enigmatic, perhaps she has more gumption than she’s given credit for. Is she someone that all Canadians can relate to and should get to know?

Second, it occurred to me that I’ve read all five Canada Reads books again in advance of the debates. It just so happens they’re all books I’m likely to either have read already or would have on my “to be read” list, but I knew I also had to have my homework done before February 11th, if not well before then to take part knowledgeably in any of the lead-up discussions or to fully appreciate the author interviews, music playlists and so on. But you know, part of me wishes I could go into the debate one of these times to be convinced without having read any of them, or to test with some purity whether the debates stand on their own as a truly useful way of being introduced to the books. Of course, the debates can’t help but be predicated on some beforehand knowledge of the books and authors. Anyhow, it’s not how Canada Reads books have come to be marketed nowadays, is it? The five-book packages and bookstore displays started in November, and we’re meant to respond. Still, don’t you think it’d be an interesting approach to learning about the books to intentionally go in blind one year?

From or near the outset, the Canada Reads book left standing every year has been touted with the phrase “the book all Canadians should read.” In 2002, when musician Steven Page championed Michael Ondaatje’s In the Skin of the Lion to the “win”, I remember following and enjoying the debates and the debaters, delighted at this new way of celebrating books, reading and readers. That year, I tuned in to the broadcasts having already read four of the five books – but I’d read them because I was interested in them before Canada Reads came along. While perhaps it happened, I don’t recall there being a protracted period of time before those first debates when everyone was exhorted to prep and read beforehand and had their own debates and discussions as extensively as they do now. (Mind you, there wasn’t then the network of blogs, hashtags and other outlets for broadcast, discussion and participation that there are now.)

But riddle me this: if we’re all supposed to read all of the finalist books beforehand, when the debates conclude and “the book all Canadians should read” is crowned … well, haven’t we all already read it? Does Canada Reads just need to fine tune its taglines, or have the objectives shifted in significant ways that shut down the magic of discovery or in fact open up new possibilities for how we collectively connect as readers?

At any rate, if you’ve engaged as a reader with the Canada Reads books and the process by which they’ve been chosen and the opportunities you’ve been given to discuss them, that’s all genuinely wonderful. One thing we need to remind ourselves before the debates start, though, is that we should not confuse any of the collegial and insightful discussions among readers and thoughts from the authors with what happens next: a show with its own machinery, agendas and dynamics. Laments in recent years – particularly last year, during the sometimes vitriolic non-fiction debates that crossed into personal terrain for authors and defenders – that Canada Reads takes its tone more from reality shows than literary salons are rather beside the point. Yes, we know. The defenders, with their range of literary credibility (and even proof that they’ve read all of the books) are public figures and presenters first (yes, even this year’s Charlotte Gray). Canada Reads has always set out to entertain as well as inform. Those who think the informing part is incidental, absent or thin can choose not to tune in, or can take part in the lead-up discussions of potentially more substance. But because Canada Reads is not and has never pretended to be a literary salon that I can recall, the entertainment fireworks and strategic machinations are wild cards that are part of the mix, and for some, part of the fun.

There is still room within the Canada Reads format as it has evolved to appreciate the expected, to react but not be too fazed by the unexpected and to even engage in it differently from year to year. If you do tune in to the final Canada Reads events, you can be assured that something we can’t possibly predict will happen to surprise us all. Something beloved or seemingly sure won’t be. Whatever the outcome, it’ll be worth returning to in iterations of its current form in years to come.

Thanks to Sean Cranbury. After Canada Reads 2012, he initiated and moderated a lively and collegial discussion on Facebook that informed my Canada Reads participation and perspectives this year.

See also:

• Canada Reads 2013 virtual book club
• Debaters in place, strategies mapped out, challenges gearing up for Canada Reads 2013 turf wars
• Commentary – With Canada Reads, the CBC is bottom-feeding on culture
  by Kathryn Kuitenbrouwer
  Special to The Globe and Mail
  February 10, 2012
• On not putting yourself out there
  by Stacey May Fowles
  Special to National Post
  February 8, 2013

After a bracing foray into non-fiction in 2012, Canada Reads 2013 returns to fiction. The framework for choosing the final books to be debated this time involved dividing the country (somewhat awkwardly) into five regions. Canadians were asked to recommend the novel they wanted to represent the place they call home. From a voted top 10 books per region to a second vote to narrow it down to top 5 books per region, the chosen debaters have brought it down to …

• Carol Huynh (@HuynhCarol) will defend Indian Horse by Richard Wagamese (Douglas & McIntyre), representing the BC & Yukon region
• Ron Maclean will defend The Age of Hope by David Bergen (Harper Collins Canada), representing the Prairies & The North region
• Charlotte Gray will defend Away by Jane Urquhart (McClelland and Stewart), representing the Ontario region
• Jay Baruchel (@BaruchelNDG) will defend Two Solitudes by Hugh MacLennan, representing the Quebec region
• Trent McClellan (@Trent_McClellan) will defend February by Lisa Moore (House of Anansi Press), representing the Atlantic Provinces region
  Read my review of February, by Lisa Moore

I hope to post reviews of or commentaries on the other finalist books in the weeks to come. I’m also hoping to speak to some of this year’s debaters/book advocates and will post about that shortly.

The Canada Reads web site gives you everything you need to know about the books, the debaters, what everyone else thinks about the books and the debaters and what their strategies should be … all ramping up to the actual debates, which will take place from February 11th to 14th, 2013.

Our Canada Reads challenge to you

Leading up to the debates, here’s a way to get some more sparks flying between you and your book friends and tweeps.

1. Pair up with a book friend or tweep and challenge each other to two things: identify a favourite library, book or literacy cause, and predict the outcome of the Canada Reads 2013 debates. Speak aloud your favourite cause, but keep your predictions under wraps (for now).
2. Write down your Canada Reads predictions – the order in which the 5 books will finish – and seal them in an envelope.
3. Exchange your envelope with your book friend, who will also have sealed his/her predictions.
4. Shake hands with your book friend, and commit to two things: to not open those envelopes until the Canada Reads debates finish in February, 2013, and to donate to your friend’s library, book or literacy cause if your predictions are the least accurate of the two.
5. Tweet who you are pairing up with for the challenge and promote the library, book or literacy cause that will benefit when you win and your opponent must make a donation. Tweet to @ayoungvoice and/or @bookgaga, and we’ll keep track of everyone who is taking the challenge.
6. When all is revealed in February, you and your book friend/challenge partner open your envelopes and determine whose predictions were closest. Whoever predicted closest to the final Canada Reads results asks their challenge partner to make a donation as the “loser” (no one’s really a loser, though) of the bet.
7. Tweet your results and mention again the cause that benefits from your challenge.

Allegra Young (@ayoungvoice) and I have already challenged each other to make our Canada Reads predictions. We have exchanged our sealed envelopes and revealed the causes we’re representing as part of this challenge.

Joining us on the challenge are:

• Carrie Macmillan (@Cmacmizzle) and Jeanne Duperreault (@jaduperreault)

Care to join us?

Happy reading or re-reading of the Canada Reads contenders. Looking forward to all of the debates … the ones in February and the ones we’ll all be having before, during and after.

Although it made the most noise and seemed to garner the most attention, the big story was not harsh, borderline slanderous words thrown out as calculated debate tactics by one panelist to two authors whose books were in contention for the winner of this year’s Canada Reads competition. While distracting, that provocation (if you must and haven’t, you can learn more here) thankfully turned out to be something of a sideshow to the much bigger story: that a finale perfectly capturing the fabric of today’s Canada was triumphantly executed with exemplary and quintessential Canadian finesse.

If you missed it, the final round for winner of Canada Reads 2012 pitted the book Something Fierce by Carmen Aguirre, a story of Chilean refugees in the Pinochet era in the early 1980s, defended by award winning hip hop artist Shad, against The Game by Ken Dryden, a both wide reaching and personal reflection on Canada’s national game from one of its most revered players, defended by actor, songwriter and TV show host Alan Thicke. Hmm, “pitted” sounds like a heated conflict. It generated heat in that the final defenders and the remaining panelists waxed heartfelt and poetic about the inspiring themes in both books, but that heat was warmth, not the more ephemeral sparks of gamesmanship. That collegial and respectful coming together at the end exemplified many of the Canadian values that this annual “battle of the books” culminates in exploring every year. And as finalist Shad remarked at the outset of the final day’s discussions, it was “hair splitting” at that point to crown any of the books a titular winner.

It was remarks like that that also highlighted one of the greatest delights of the entire debate series. Book defender Shad embodied diplomacy and grace throughout the proceedings. He not only courteously acknowledged the views of his competing book defenders, but found regular opportunities (not just ones dictated by specific questions from the moderator, Jian Ghomeshi) to sincerely and evenhandedly praise the other books with a level of knowledge and detail that spoke to his studious reading of and supplementary to the entire finalist list. (He admitted in an off-camera chat after one of the debates that he was reading up on other Ken Dryden books, ostensibly for more debate fodder, but clearly for sheer interest and enjoyment, too.)

There were wonderful contrasts and symmetries produced by the final pairing of Something Fierce and The Game, dichotomies that simply would not have been put in such intriguing relief if the final two were, say, Something Fierce and Prisoner of Tehran (two books both about daunting new Canadian experiences), or The Game and On a Cold Road (paeans to Canadian cultural icons firmly rooted in this country). The contrasts and, in essence, the yin and yang of the final two books made for a satisfying, balanced view of what Canadians should be reading – really, both books if they haven’t already – to truly gain insight into what it means today to be a Canadian.

Some of the contrasts of the two books that were most striking and thought provoking included The Game‘s tribute to but also pointed examination of a sport that is a transcendent cultural touchstone in many ways, part of the traditions of many native born Canadians, but is not without its problems that Dryden pointedly tackled in the early 1980s and are still sadly relevant today. This is set against Something Fierce‘s unflinching account of an extraordinary new Canadian experience (where it might not be readily apparent where Canada actually fits favourably in the story), sparked by political upheaval elsewhere in the world in the early 1980s (interesting!) that is still in many respects sadly relevant today.

Both books have a strong foundation in the importance of family, even when those families have their shortcomings, as all families do. As a professional athlete who traveled constantly, Dryden worried poignantly about being an absentee parent, but he also celebrated the generosity of his parents in providing a home and support for he and his siblings to play out and realize their dreams. The word “shortcomings” is too mild to describe the outright dysfunction in Aguirre’s family dynamic – from divorced parents to a mother and stepfather who then drew their children (including a child born while essentially on the run in South America) into subterfuge and danger. But Aguirre’s choice to continue with her mother’s political causes when she became an adult is testament, in part at least, to profound familial love and respect.

The two books are a true study in contrast in terms of authorial voice. The voice of Something Fierce exudes warmth, passion, as well as a youthful, mercurial and unfiltered heedlessness and comparative lack of processing of thoughts and motives. That last is not a criticism, but just a description of the callow narrator’s perspective. The voice of The Game is cooler, more cerebral, more thoughtful, having stepped back more from the events and issues in which the protagonist was directly involved. But a more analytical or meditative approach doesn’t preclude warmth and compassion and humour, too, and it’s there, but more subtly woven into the narrative. Ultimately, both voices convey profound kindness and a desire to do the right thing in the world at large. Aren’t both voices just two sides of the Canadian identity coin?

While attending all four of the Canada Reads debate tapings for web streaming and TV, I was really gratified to talk to lots of fellow readers, particularly non-fiction enthusiasts with very personal connections to the books being discussed. One reader wisely observed that an aspect of the Canadian immigrant experience that many might not realize or appreciate is that many people come to Canada with a heavy and perhaps somewhat grudging heart. Canada may be a choice and even a haven, but a significant number of immigrants are leaving their countries of origin with regrets and reluctance. That remark coupled with Shad’s steadfast and levelheaded defence of Something Fierce were revelations for this reader.

This all is not to dismiss that the words spoken at the beginning of Canada Reads have faded away or necessarily should. They rankle, and will likely be talked about, tweeted, hashed over, deconstructed on blogs and, most significantly, will clutch at and wound hearts for some time to come. Beaming more brightly, though, is that when Canada Reads righted itself after that initial outburst, it brought to all Canadian readers a stimulating discussion highlighting the contrasting but complementary personae, desires and values that make up the Canadian identity.

See also:

Non-fiction authors as characters in their own works

My reviews of Canada Reads 2012 finalists:

• Prisoner of Tehran, by Marina Nemat
• The Tiger, by John Vaillant
• The Game, by Ken Dryden
• Something Fierce, by Carmen Aguirre
• On a Cold Road, by Dave Bidini (to follow)

At the halfway point in the four-day series of Canada Reads 2012 debates, an interesting issue about a fundamental aspect of creative non-fiction is emerging, and it’s got me thinking. I just wanted to set down a few quick thoughts and ask for some reactions, from those following the debates and from those who are fans of creative non-fiction. I’d love to get your thoughts – either here in the comments or via Twitter – on the question of whether or not a non-fiction author needs or should be a character in her/her own work.

In memoirs, literary journalism, personal essays and other narrative forms using factually accurate material as their basis, the author of such creative non-fiction works can essentially take one of two roles in the telling of their chosen stories:

• Participant – The author was involved in the true story in some capacity, either as an individual or part of a group to whom something happened, or as a firsthand observer, perhaps with particularly intimate knowledge of the persons and/or events that are the focus of the story.
• Reporter – The author gathers and shapes factual information about events and persons with whom the author was not involved, and builds a story through research and filtering of trusted and perhaps not trustworthy perspectives.

This categorization is admittedly basic and simple. Also, categorizing in this fashion is rarely this cut and dried across many works of creative non-fiction. Even if a story is presented in as seemingly objective a fashion as possible, the author is likely to implicitly, subliminally or in fact explicitly demonstrate a bias, an emotional attachment of some sort and so on. There are works that cross, with varying degrees of clarity and success, between the roles of participants and reporters. I’d contend that most often, you see reporter-style non-fiction authors getting increasingly involved in the stories they’re reaching and reporting on, and becoming a peripheral character or voice in the telling of the story.

Of course, there are challenges and dangers tipping in both directions on the objectivity/subjectivity scale with authors reporting on versus participating in the stories captured in their non-fiction works. If a firsthand observer or protagonist is passionately entwined in his/her story, that can make for a captivating, stirring read, but it might also be a read where the veracity and balance of interpretation of events is in doubt. If a reporter remains distanced and cool in laying out the elements and issues of his/her story, does it make for a more trustworthy, balanced account, but also something less compelling? Conversely, if a reporter is too explicitly engaged or has an agenda, does that too plant doubts?

An interesting recent example of a reporter becoming a character in the story on which she was reporting is author Susan Orlean and her book Rin Tin Tin, The Life and the Legend. One could take closer and more arms length approaches to capturing the story of the iconic animal figure, an attractive and heroic German Shepherd that went from movie and television star to a still enduring commercial franchise and cultural touchstone. The book could have been a historical or pop culture study, but as she went along in the personal researching and interviewing for the story, Orlean admits to becoming more and more personally engaged in the story. As a result, she speaks directly and describes her participation in the shaping of the story, and why specifically the story of Rin Tin Tin resonated for her, particularly at the stage in her life when she was writing the book. Some readers might find that approach intrusive or distracting, others might find that inclusion (not intrusion) makes the story easier to identify with and even more absorbing.

Much rarer and perhaps temperamentally simply not possible is the non-fiction work where a participant in the story attempts to simply report objectively on the story. Is that possible? Hold that thought.

At the start of the two debates so far, moderator Jian Ghomeshi has cautioned panelists and audience that the debates are about the books, not about the authors. But with just about every question or point of debate, that distinction gets regularly blurred. (You could also say that distinction was downright smeared on the first day by one of the panelists who leveled provocative accusations at two of the authors. Since I’m not completely convinced the provocation wasn’t a stunt, and whether it was or not, it’s a somewhat tawdry distraction, I’ll point to this coverage of the controversy and carry on with the discussion.)

Interestingly, over the first couple of days of the debates, there have been discussion points and references to how much we get to know Ken Dryden, Dave Bidini, Marina Nemat and Carmen Aguirre in their respective books. This doesn’t really come up as a point with John Vaillant, as The Tiger is a book firmly positioned in the unobtrusive reporter-style spectrum of creative non-fiction. (That’s not a dismissive categorization – it’s elegant, masterful, transcendent storytelling with solid reportage as its base.) But if we’re supposed to keep authors distinct from the “characters” in their books, how then are we to assess the “characters” of Ken Dryden, Dave Bidini, Marina Nemat and Carmen Aguirre.

Whatever you feel about issues of authenticity and trust in their stories, Marina Nemat and Carmen Aguirre are clearly the central protagonists of their books. For those that admire and defend the books, and even those who don’t, no one denies that readers have personal reactions or connections to the Marina and the Carmen in the books. The same goes, in many respects, for Dave Bidini, although he balances his own account with a reporter’s instinct for drawing in the perspectives and voices of many other people who have shared his experiences as an up and coming musician travelling the highways and byways of Canada building one’s career. No one has commented thus far in the Canada Reads debates that they aren’t seeing or hearing enough from the Marina, Carmen and Dave of their respective books.

Why then have the panelists, almost to a person, all remarked that they haven’t been engaged by or felt they learned enough about Ken Dryden – the aspiring athlete and happy kid in his dad’s backyard, the victorious goalie on a storied Canadian hockey team, the family man struggling to make family time, the thoughtful mortal struggling with fame and future aspirations – as depicted by Ken Dryden the author? Is it just possible that Ken Dryden the author has pulled off the unique feat of taking a convincing and trustworthy reporter-style approach to a story in which he is the main participant?

Rereading The Game in preparation for Canada Reads, having read it previously closer to its original publication in the early 1980s, I was impressed again at the almost preternatural thoughtfulness with which Dryden stood back from his own life and passions and took a bigger picture view of the nature of the sport to which he’d devoted his life to that point. That he was able to do that so objectively means that perhaps he sacrificed some personal warmth and connection with some readers to put some thought to bigger issues that, as it turns out, are still deeply relevant today. In throwing the net a little wider than his own personal experience, but judiciously using that experience to lend credibility to his broader observations, I think Dryden has crafted a gold standard work of creative non-fiction that is both thought provoking and touching. Maybe that makes it the book that all Canadians should read.

Are non-fiction authors obliged to be characters in their own works? Can they be reporters and even mine their own experiences, but put it to greater creative or critical use? Just some food for thought in the bountiful banquet that is this year’s Canada Reads debates.

My reviews of Canada Reads 2012 finalists:

• Prisoner of Tehran, by Marina Nemat
• The Tiger, by John Vaillant
• The Game, by Ken Dryden
• Something Fierce, by Carmen Aguirre
• On a Cold Road, by Dave Bidini (to follow)

Take a look here for the challenge details …

… and then join us here!

Julie Wilson (aka @BookMadam) and I recently exchanged our Canada Reads predictions in sealed envelopes:

As part of the exchange, we described to each other the charitable causes we were supporting as part of this exercise (see below). We then had an intriguing chat about the rationale for our predictions, without giving our choices away. It’s an interesting way to defend your choices, without giving them a way – try it!

On February 10th, 2012, Julie and I did our Canada Reads predictions reveal.

Our predictions scoring system accounted for the order in which the books were voted off, with a bonus for predicting the winner. The accountants at Price Waterhouse determined that although our Canada Reads predictions differed, Julie (aka @BookMadam) and I scored a … tie! That meant that both of our charities – Neighbourhood Link & Books With Wings – won our Canada Reads challenge. Neat, eh?