TDR Interview: Matthew Firth
Fresh Meat was the image Matthew
Firth chose for the title of his first book of short stories (Rush Hour
Revisions, 1997). Packed with gritty realism and pared back prose, that
booked helped to strike back at the lyrical pastoralism that seeped into Canadian literature
during the past decade.
Firth has helped to encourage a new tone for literary writing in Canada by
publishing chapbooks, two different literary magazines, and his own
growing oeuvre of tell-it-like-it-is short stories.
The Danforth Review talked to Firth about the
trouble with realism, the trouble with Canlit, and his new book - Can
You Take Me There, Now? - published in September 2001 by Boheme
Press.
This interview was conducted by email in December 2000.
|
|
TDR: Who are you? Outline briefly your background as a
writer, including a list of the literary projects you’ve been a part
of.
FIRTH: Matthew Firth. Born and raised in Hamilton, currently living
in Ottawa. Brown hair, brown eyes, medium build. Last seen wearing a
brown leather jacket, black boots, green corduroy trousers and Toronto
Maple Leafs toque.
I’ve been writing seriously now for eight or nine years. Prose
exclusively. I’ve done two chapbooks with my own imprint, Black Bile
Press. In 1997 Rush Hour Revisions published a collection of short
stories entitled Fresh Meat. Ray Robertson in The Toronto Star
said of that book: "Firth is no Ondaatje or Atwood."
Conversely, Urban Graffiti editor Mark McCawley called it
"Raw and unpretentious." I prefer the second quote.
In addition to writing fiction, I’ve co-authored one book of
non-fiction called Workplace Roulette (Between the Lines, 1997).
That book has sold over 5000 copies.
I’m also an editor. From 94-97 I edited the litzine Black Cat
115. I am currently co-editor of Front&Centre, a
fiction/review magazine. As mentioned, I run a small press and will be
issuing a new chapbook this Spring called Stripe, a collection of
short stories by British writer David Rose.
Next autumn, Boheme Press will be publishing a new book of mine
called Can You Take Me There, Now?
TDR: How would you describe your work? Illustrate your
answer with examples.
FIRTH: Contemporary. Realistic. Accessible. Direct. Anti-bourgeois.
Anti-academic. Anti-theoretical. As McCawley said, "Raw and
unpretentious"; that fits as well.
I’d say that these words describe my work in Fresh Meat and
any of the stories that I’ve recently published in magazines, journals
and anthologies. I rely a lot on past work experiences to fuel my
fiction. A story called "The Job" will appear in the next
issue of sub-Terrain. It’s about garbagemen and the misery that
is their day-to-day work. There is no romance, just booze, a lousy
paycheque, and, one day off on the horizon: retirement. I don’t
pretend to be a working class hero, but how many M&S books are about
garbagemen with bad skin? None that I can recall.
Most of my work looks
at ordinary folks and day-to-day life. I’m not interested in the
extraordinary; characters with deep travails and too much time on their
hands to ruminate their place in the cosmos. I write about folks in the
here and now and the common troubles that unite most of us: earning
enough money to feed ourselves, trying to satisfy our need for
love/lust, occasionally clashing with those around us. Nothing grander
than this.
TDR: I read once that you started your now defunct
literary ‘zine Black Cat #115 because you were tired of being rejected
by the Toronto-based literary magazine Blood & Aphorisms. You have
since started a second literary magazine, Front & Centre Magazine,
which is published in Canada and the UK. This seems to suggest there is
a lack of venues for your work and work like yours. Do you think the
publishing community in Canada is too cautious? What do you think should
be encouraged, discouraged?
FIRTH: Yes, too cautious, definitely. Canadian publishing is largely
this great, self-perpetuating cliché: that we are all WASPish middle
class folks with gentle dispositions and manageable problems. There is
too little blood and guts and grit in Can Lit; way too little. More
diversity should be encouraged: more writing that is truly
representative of, and derived from, people’s day-to-day lives.
Writing that is middle/upper class and middle of the road should be
discouraged. We’ve far too much of that; we’ve had far too
much of that. Our writing needs to start challenging overtly the
stereotype that Canada is a comfy-cosy place to live and breathe. It isn’t
so for a large bunch of folks.
I got off the bus and walked ten blocks
to work this morning in –23 degree weather and passed half a dozen
poor bastards trembling on the pavement, sparing for change. Ten years
ago, you’d never have seen such a sight. Comfy and cosy isn’t
reality any more. This country, like the rest of the globe, is getting
harsher and crueler and more uncaring and self-centred. A stroll through
any city or town in the country will demonstrate this.
But why doesn’t
our literature reflect this? Why is our literature largely staid and
soporific? Partly because this has been the tradition here. Partly, I
suspect, because all the radicalism and marrow has been sucked out of
most of our magazines, journals and publishing houses. I don’t want to
go on a complete tirade; maybe funding and financial survival has a wee
bit to do with it. Maybe it’s leftover from the spectre of political
correctness. Maybe it’s a prim and proper downtown Toronto thing;
there are various explanations…
TDR: Realism is a bit of a dirty word,
particularly on university campuses these days, but Front & Centre
Magazine specifically calls for work from that tradition. What does
realism mean in a time when there is so much scepticism in readers about
the ability of language to represent either concrete things or universal
values or principles.
FIRTH: Well, first off, notions that are bandied about on university
campuses are of little consequence to me. I went running and screaming
from university when I was finished with it. I think I’m allergic to
ivy and sandstone. In a purely theoretical realm, language has
shortcomings and is not fully representative of our realities, as you
point out. But then since when do people get by on a purely theoretical
realm? That’s not reality, either. Language has its shortcomings, no
doubt. I can stumble and fumble with words and not hit the nail on the
head. Language, democracy, sex, war: these are but a few of humanity’s
imperfect obsessions.
That language is forever tainted by subjectivity
doesn’t mean it should be abandoned and rendered impotent. If some guy
on a job site says, "Hey Frank, pass me the fucking hammer,"
it’s pretty clear what he’s saying. If I write in a short story,
"I spent most of last night dodging cops and queers so obviously I’m
not at my best," (opening line from a story in my new collection)
you’ve got a pretty good idea what I’m on about, and, more
importantly, perhaps, with some luck you’re intrigued. Readers bring
biases, writers present biases. So be it. The interaction between the
two is what makes writing worthwhile, challenging.
I don’t buy the
line that language cannot represent reality. It’s like Ivory Snow
soap: it’s 99 and 44/100s pure. Or thereabouts. That’s close enough
for me. Close enough for most people. Those intent on deconstructing
language are mucking about in minutiae, which is not how we all get by
Monday to Friday and beyond.
TDR: Name a few writers you like and why.
FIRTH: A few come to mind straightaway. William S. Burroughs has been
a long-time inspiration. Despite the groans I can imagine hearing just
now and despite the hype that developed about him in the 90s, he was a
true radical. He rejected his bourgeois upbringing and wrote one of the
most uncompromising novels I’ve encountered. Kenneth J. Harvey because
he is a writer who is forever challenging himself and who rails against
typical dreary CanLit. Daniel Jones, an iconoclast and, for the most
part, a minimalist and a realist. He also worked at the Hamilton
Psychiatric Hospital, as I once did; that eerie place feeds my fiction
still.
Hubert Selby—pure power in that man’s work. Raymond Carver
because he made the simple literary and demonstrated that literature is
best when it is simple. Thom Jones is another, he’s in the Carver
mould, plus he writes about boxing a lot, which is very cool in my
estimation. Alexander Trocchi’s Cain’s Book was one of those
novels that rocked me way back when, too. Another Scot, Laura Hird, is a
great new writer whose work packs a punch. Can’t forget Bukowski and
John Fante, too. All of these writers and others I go back to regularly,
which is testament to their sway over me.
TDR: What are you working on now? What’s next for
Matthew Firth?
FIRTH: I’m still editing Front&Centre. I’m pushing
forward what I, and the other editors, regard as strong contemporary
fiction in the magazine. Will have a national distribution deal soon, if
all goes smoothly.
As for my own work, I’ve got a new book due out in the autumn of
2001 called Can You Take Me There, Now?. It’s being
published by Boheme Press on
their new imprint, Alley Cat Editions. Eighteen new short stories about
love, lust, misplaced bitterness and simple survival in this dark age. I
shelved a half-completed novel about a year ago. Time to get busy on a
new one. Otherwise, I work 50 hours a week at the day job, have a wife
and a son and play pick-up hockey every Friday night for two hours at a
rink round the corner from my place. Ordinary stuff. That’s the beauty
of it. |