February 11, 2004

Subject: Craig Davidson on reviews by Kane X. Kaucher

Dear Danforth Review,

My challenge to you is to write quote-unquote straight-up reviews of both montreal stories and solid as echo.  there are plenty of problems with the argument forwarded by davidson.  a) he offers severl ad hominem attacks that completely discredit him, and b) he clearly has no understandin of academic writing, where it is precisely the point to explicity name both the author and the genre in order to pass.  these things aside, he does raise an interesting issue when he several times suggests that you (kane) "self-hype" yourself (i don't necessarily mean that the issue he raises works in his favour).  

in the first instance, why shouldn't the writer a review imprint the text under discussion with his or her style?  anyone interested in the study of canadian literature should examine the various discussions callaghan reports having had with hemingway regarding style and the book review (particulary keeping in mind that davidson is remarking about reviews about canadian books by canadians).  secondly, i just the other day received a review of 'uncle dirty,' written by scott albert which i admired.  the reason it caught my attention and favor was its strong and opionated voice.  

recently, michael bryson offered a column in which he weighed the pros and cons of delivering frank reviews within the fairly tight-knit community of can-lit, or toronto-lit, as opposed to letting fly with rampant and untempered opinions (am i getting this right?).  the issue, i think, is between severe critique or severe criticism.  i think scott did an exemplary job of offering both a critique and a criticism.  he suggested how the novel fit into his own personal scheme of approval while also fitting the work into at least two larger contexts by which we might asses its literary worth.  kane, i think, has done a similar job, although i have to agree that what he's done fits a peculiar model.  all the same, i offer the following response from a colleague at york university:   

Holeeeeee:

What is that about -- and how did someone find the perfect reviewer? I can't even begin to respond but I love every minute of it...that is
because I love being places that are beyond my understanding.. always have. That's why I hang out in the places and with the people I do -- rodeo cowboys, Egyptian dykes and people immersed in indigenous knowledge or not....oh yeah, and kids and their friends.

are you pleased with this review? have you found the person?

Celia

little does celia know, as well as davidson: i actually sought faucher out.  or better put, faucher found me out, bought my book, contacted me directly, sent me his book, i said 'wow, you really can write: wanna write a review for the danforth,' sent him a book, received his review, and then egotistically suggested he review my own book.  the long and short of it is that at least one of the editors does want to see this kind of review.  moreover, kane isn't the first person i've asked to contribute.  several voices have emerged, including my own, that are a) just as radical, and b) just as academic (although, in this case, it would seem, anti-academic.

A.E.M. (Anthony Metivier, TDR's fiction reviews editor)