Subject: Michael Bryson's article on the Canadian Writers' Coalition

Date: January 26, 2002

Michael Bryson, in his rambling report on the coalition of Canadian writers, succeeds at a number of things, though unfortunately none of them are particularly interesting or worthwhile.

He spends a few lines explaining the basics of the situation. Then we hear some thoughtless comments he heard about how Canadian books must be crap if they aren't selling, suggesting we can ignore the business of the industry completely in favour of blaming the content of Canadian books. He goes on to refute this, but not particularly well, which makes me ask why he included it.

Next, we are told that the coalition concept could use a better marketing campaign. At last we get a clear idea, although hardly an incredible one, weakly supported with the idea that among many other things, the Canada Council will allow funding for "more effective promotion of Canadian books." But I think this almost certainly doesn't refer to the recent and privately arranged marketing his article is about.

We are given a typical counterproductive ramble about how many inroads Canadian culture makes into the states. I'm sick of this, and I know if I met an Irish poet who kept going on about how much he was read in England, I'd wonder why he cared so much and why he didn't just get on with things.

We are told a comment from a poet that she merely hopes that she'll be read outside her immediate circle of friends. If he's talking about wanting to share your work with others, I can relate to that, and in particular a frustration with the small market for poetry. But if he thinks some sassy promotional ideas will get millions of people buying and reading poetry books, I'm afraid he's wrong. Poetry has been pushed to the margins for a variety of reasons, and those who continue to write it should do so because they love it, knowing full well the situation won't change overnight, though careful and worthy writing will help.

We are left with the vague idea that we should take Canadian books more seriously and pay attention to "the good ones," as though that won't be a matter of opinion. Finally, another clear suggestion surfaces with the idea that we should be more honest in reviews, though this point was made much better in Public Hanging: the Death of the Book Review by Shane Neilson on the same site.

In short, I can't decide if the article was counterproductive or merely useless. Either way, I'm surprised The Danforth Review wasted my time like that.

Alex Boyd