The
Fiction of Douglas Glover: An Essay in Three Parts
Opens outward into mystery
by Michael Bryson
The
South Will Rise At Noon
by Douglas Glover
Goose Lane Editions, 2004
The Enamoured Knight
by Douglas Glover
Oberon Press, 2004
The Art of Desire:
The Fiction of Douglas Glover
Edited by Bruce Stone, Contributors: Bruce Stone, Louis I. MacKendrick,
Claire Wilkshire, Lawrence Mathews, Phil Tabokow, Don Sparling, Philip
Marchand, Stephen Henighan, Douglas Glover w/ Bruce Stone (interview)
Oberon Press, 2004
See also:
Douglas Glover won the Governor General’s
Award for fiction in 2003 for Elle. About that novel, the GG
jurors said: "This headlong, intense interior monologue combines
humour, horror and brutality with intelligence and linguistic dexterity
to forge a revised creation myth for the New World."
Elle
told the story of a 16th-century French maiden thrown off a
ship in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence for sexual improprieties. Abandoned
for dead, she manages to survive through the winter with the aid of
local Native people. The following Spring, she is picked up by the crew
of a passing vessel and returned to France, where she takes up with
writer, monk and physician, François Rabelais (1494-1553), author of Gargantua
and Pantagruel. Along the way, in the wilds of Canada and later, she
[imagines she] is transformed into a bear.
And some people say Canadian literature
is all about wheat fields and small town alienation. ‘Tis not so. Some
of our writers, thank ye quivering quills, have managed to escape Canlit’s
tradition of esthetic Calvinism: emotional restraint, naive realism, the
victim-as-survivor metaphorical universe Northrop Frye called a
"garrison mentality" and Margaret Atwood made popular in Survival,
her "thematic guide to Canadian literature."
Sure, Elle’s protagonist survives,
but her struggle is not a quest for self-definition in opposition to the
natural forces lined up against her (as per Atwood’s representation of
Susanna Moodie in her 1973 poetry cycle The
Journals of Susanna Moodie, for example). Rather Elle revels
in the comedy of an unlikely life (Glover has based the story, in part,
on historical record). Elle is among that category of Canadian
novels distinguished because they are rare: Novels that stem from a
tradition of novel-writing that brings together narrative and ideas in a way
that shows less concern for mimesis, or any attempt to mimic so-called
reality, and instead foregrounds the artifice of art. In recent decades,
this tradition has been called post-modern. In fact, it is way,
way pre-modern. There is also another word for it: Rabelaisian.
Qua?
Let’s look at the question from a different angle. In Survival,
Atwood said Moodie in Roughing It In The Bush was determined
"to preserve her Wordsworthian faith" in the beauty and bounty
of the natural world despite "the difficulty she has in doing so
when Nature fails time and time again to come through for her"
(51). Atwood wrote: "If Wordsworth was right, Canada ought to have
been the Great Good Place. At first, complaining about the bogs and
mosquitoes must have been like criticizing the authority of the
Bible" (50). Atwood gathered evidence to support her one-sided theory: To be Canadian is to be a victim, to be a
Canadian writer is to struggle against imperial esthetics that are
insufficient to communicate post-colonial reality.
A closer reading of Roughing It In The Bush,
however, reveals
that far from complaining about mosquitoes, Moodie inscribed herself as
one who learned to "defy" the mosquitoes -- along with the
"black flies . . . snakes, and even bears" (329) -- and milk a
cow despite her fear of the beast:
Yes! I felt prouder of that milk
than many an author of the best thing he ever wrote. . . . I had
learned a useful lesson of independence, to which in after-years I
had often again to refer (183).
If Canada isn’t the "Great Good
Place," neither is it a void that makes victims of all of us. All
it is, is a place like any other: A complicated mix of the comic and the
tragic, the ordered and the chaotic; bound together by high-strung
ideals and pulled apart by the need to face reality with a pragmatic frame
of mind. It is, to borrow a favourite word of Russian linguist Mikhail Bakhtin, "carnivalesque." Rabelais would have agreed; variety is
more than the spice of life; it's reality. Promoting any particular pattern minimizes
the influence of phenomena that falls outside the pattern.
C'est Canada: A little bit of everything, as humourist Will Ferguson re-affirmed
recently:
"What I find most interesting about this country is its sheer
variety" he told The National Post (October 20, 2004). In his
works like Why I
Hate Canadians Ferguson has probed this nation's popular mythologies. If
Canada was build by giants, lumberjacks, courier de bois, railway
men, arctic explorers, etc., who carved a country out of a
wilderness (and, yes, pushed aside multiple First Nations in the process), why
do Canadians at the turn of the 21st century tend to
Canadians look back on their past and see midgets and victims? Why does
Canadian history emphasize the country’s unimportance in
virtually every area except international hockey?
Trolling the ‘Net of this subject, I
found someone tackling similar questions: Our former Governor General,
Romeo LeBlanc. Here’s an excerpt from a speech he gave while in office
in 1996:
We all see Canada as a model of
openness, tolerance, and generosity, a country of perseverance and
progress. You have heard similar words before. Some would say they
are clichés about our national character.
But there is a rival cliché.
People used to talk of Canada as inward-looking, timid, anonymous.
Margaret Atwood found in our
literature, French and English, a "sombre and negative"
tone, and a preoccupation with mere survival. Northrop Frye, and I
quote the Canadian Encyclopedia, saw in our literature "a
'garrison mentality' of beleaguered settlers who huddled against the
glowering, all-consuming nothingness of the wilderness." I am
sure he was not speaking of Toronto.
So we may ask -- what is our true
nature? Generous and open, or a garrison mentality hiding from the
world?
http://www.gg.ca/media/doc.asp?lang=e&DocID=64
What is our true nature? Conflicted
surely. As the soul of every nation can’t help but be.
An example from recent history. Some
media commentators called George Bush’s November 2004
re-election "a decisive victory," but the popular vote split
51 per cent for Bush and 49 per cent for John Kerry. Even in Texas, 40
per cent of the electorate voted against the conservative, home-town
hero. The headline of a recent column in The Globe and Mail by
William Thorsell said it plainly: "America is a country still at
war with itself" (October 25, 2004), though Andrew Coyne pointed
out in The National Post on the day after the election that talk
of a "divided nation" may be overblown. Isn’t that what
elections are all about? Yes, but more importantly, that’s what
the soul-life of a nation is all about. It’s our conflicts that unite
us; the challenge to find common strategies to solve common problems
that bond us; the impossibility of ever resolving all conflicts into a
still point of unity that keeps our common story moving forward.
Which brings me (finally) to the book
at hand: The South Will Rise at Noon, Douglas Glover’s
2004 novel that was also his 1988 novel (it has been re-released in a
quality paperback edition by Goose Lane Editions).
As the title suggests, The South Will
Rise at Noon is a novel about the American Civil War. Goose Lane’s
marketing copy calls the novel:
. . . the first full-length
embodiment of Douglas Glover’s famous historical imagination.
Here, the past is a crazy pentimento that the present never
completely conceals. Disarmingly intimate and energetic, The
South Will Rise at Noon is wild and sad, hilarious and
cautionary, farcical and strangely moving.
The first two sentences of the novel
are:
Looking back, I should have
realized something was up as soon as I opened the bedroom door and
found my wife asleep on top of the sheets with a strange man curled
up like a foetus beside her. Right away I could see she was naked.
Glover’s publisher summarizes the
rest of the plot thus:
Tully Stamper, just out of jail,
stumbles home to Gomez Gap, Florida, and into bed with his sleeping
ex-wife and her new husband, Otto Osterwalder. Otto, a flamboyant
movie director, has cast the townspeople in his melodramatic
re-enactment of a Civil War skirmish, the Battle of Gomez Gap.
Tully, a failed painter, a bankrupt, a liar, a drunk, and a
flagrantly deadbeat dad, is also a modern-day knight errant who
tries to win back his loved ones in the midst of the supposedly
imitation battle.
The phrase "a modern-day knight
errant" is an obvious reference to Cevantes’ hero,
the mild lunatic of Don Quixote. Cerventes' life (1547-1615)
overlapped briefly with the life of Rabelais (1494-1553).
The former was Spanish, the latter French; however, their work has come
down to us through the centuries mixed in spirit. If Elle is
Glover's Rabelais novel, The South Will Rise At Noon is his
Cerventes novel. Though if these broad generalizations mean anything at
all, they only suggest that Glover draws inspiration from the broad
tradition of the Renaissance
humanists. Both Elle and The South Will Rise At Noon question how
"story" (history) is constructed -- as does Glover's other
novel, The Life And Times of Captain N., which takes place at the
time of the American Revolution and incorporates the perspectives of the
Loyalists, the Revolutionaries, and the First Nations in a swirling tour
de force.
If Goose Lane is right -- that The
South Will Rise At Noon is "the first full-length embodiment of
Douglas Glover’s famous historical imagination" -- then we
can expect to find across Glover's oeuvre patterns that were initially
laid down in that 1988 novel. As I noted above, yes, those patterns are
there.
To dig deeper, though, we must ask
ourselves what that phrase means: What is Glover's "historical
imagination"? What is he up to in these three novels?
The Enamoured Knight
by Douglas Glover
Oberon Press, 2004
"If you want to read the book, you have to read the
book."
-- Douglas Glover
The
above quotation comes from Douglas Glover’s book-length essay, The
Enamoured Knight (Oberon Press, 2004), on Cervantes’ great novel, Don
Quixote. In his essay, Glover assails simple-minded critics who read
the novel as an extended allegory that recommends reality over illusion,
fact over fiction, the quotidian over flights of fancy. While Glover does
say that Cervantes’ work is that strange thing, a book against books, he
is clear that it is not another thing, a work of the imagination against
the imagination.
In The Enamoured Knight, Glover returns again and again to
critics who look into Don Quixote and see a world of either/or and
argues theirs is a view too simple to be credible. To some, Quixote, the
mad knight, represents the danger of the dream world, while his trusty
friend Sancho represents the sane simplicity of the solid (real) everyday
world of facts and mortgages. Glover shows the irony of that position:
"If you want to read the book, you have to read the book." The
words (facts) between the first page and last page of Don Quixote
reveal a far more complicated world than the sentimental critics would
have us believe.
Two recent reviews will help with the illustration.
First, the January 2005 issue of Quill & Quire included a
review by Sarah Ellis of Tales of Don Quixote by Miguel de
Cervantes, retold by Barbara Nichol. (That’s right, retold by Barbara
Nichol.) Ms. Ellis wrote in her review that she
kept Nichol in abeyance for a week or so while [she] immersed
[herself] in the original, a first-time read for [her]. As [she] meandered
along with Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, [she] asked [herself] what was
potentially appealing to children about this narrative.
Ellis finds two items potentially appealing to children:
- "the Winnie-the-Pooh factor. Don Quixote is a knight of very
little brain and in this story the reader is always smarter than the
hero"; and
- "humour. Like a comedy smorgasbord, this story has slapstick,
satire, puns, farce, guys dressed up as damsels, scatological jokes,
and a particular form of post-modern Monty Pythonesque
absurdity."
Mitigating against Don Quixote’s appeal to children Ellis
counts "its length, confusing digressions, and the fact that many of
the incidents don’t make any logical or emotional sense. [Her] most
common reaction while reading was ‘Huh?’"
Well, well. Too bad so sad for Ms. Ellis that Glover’s The
Enamoured Knight came too late. Though to be fair to Ellis, she
does end her review advising readers "to consult the big fat original
and have as good time as [she] did." Ellis also manages to identify
in the big fat original "post-modern Monty Pythonesque
absurdity" (a redundancy, surely). What she doesn’t get is that the
"confusing digressions" are part of the scheme. As Glover points
out, Cervantes has the narrator in Part II, which was published a decade
after Part I, comment on the fact that readers complained about the
digressions in the first published volume. (In other words, the
digressions are ultimately part of the joke, but you need to read the
novel as a whole before you can be in on it.)
Don Quixote is a book that comments on the fact that it is a
book – and the fact that it is actually two books in one (Parts I &
II). But the narrator also comments that the story has been recovered from
other texts. The story is a story about telling stories. Of course, the
most basic reduction of the plot line is that Quixote believes he is a
knight acting out the plot line of a Romance novel. He is deluded into
believing he is the hero of a book. But he is the hero of a book! Just not
the book he thinks he’s the hero in! From this point forward, Glover
points out, things become more complicated – and any attempt to reduce
the novel to a simple plot can only be less than satisfactory.
Reader beware: "If you want to read the book, you have to read the
book."
The
Enamoured Knight includes, among other things, one of the
best summaries of the history of the novel you'll read anywhere. An
excerpt has been included on The Danforth Review.
Another
excerpt is on The Globe and Mail website.
The second review I want to highlight here is The Globe and
Mail’s review of The
Enamoured Knight by Darryl Whetter
(January 15, 2005). Whetter lauds Glover’s book-length essay, but ends
his review with what he considers the essay’s paradox:
If, as Glover and company suggest, Don Quixote is indeed the
progenitor of the novel, and if, as Glover assiduously points out, it is
a novel more concerned with writing self-consciously about a fictional
world than directly portraying that world, why has the vast majority of
subsequent thinking about the novel preferred the latter to the former?
If the novel didn’t begin with a "realistic" rendering of
the world, why is it expected to do so now?
In actual fact – one is tempted to say "as Whetter would have
seen if he had read the book" – Glover explicitly points out:
the novel followed several historical trajectories at once. While one
kind of novel followed the path of conventional realism, what we might
call an alternative tradition of self-consciousness, complexity,
experiment, elaboration and playfulness has flourished simultaneously,
though perhaps with leaner commercial success (88).
In my reading of The
Enamoured Knight, I found Glover
careful not to claim Don Quixote as the "first novel." I
don’t believe this is the question that interests Glover. In an
interview I did with him in 2001, I said I thought he was like Milan
Kundera, in that he was "interested in the history of ideas." It
was my attempt to ask him about "traditional" versus
"experimental" novels. In response, he said:
My argument is mostly against anyone who takes one or the other as
being definitive--how sick I am of all those turgid, log-rolling
arguments about whether novels should have ethical messages or whether
they should be purely aesthetic confections. Most writers strike a
balance that somehow suits their particular temperament. Why some feel
called upon to climb on soap boxes and campaign for the primacy of their
particular brand of novel-writing is beyond me.
I believe The
Enamoured Knight is consistent with the above
quotation, and that Whetter has mis-read Glover’s book-essay on
Cervantes’ novel. It’s not a matter of preferring one over the other.
It’s about recognizing the novel-writing universe for the complexities
that exist within it. If you want to understand the solar system, you
gotta get out there and take photographs up close of Saturn’s moons.
"If you want to read the book, you have to read the book."
In Notes Home from a Prodigal Son, Glover has an essay
("Masks of I") that outlines two opposing theories of the novel:
one championed by Percy Lubbock in The Craft of Fiction (1921) and
one outlined by E.M. Forster in Aspect of the Novel (1927). Glover
shows the opposites do not need to negate each other. Novels are about
making up things. In the make-believe world, we can co-exist quite
unremarkably. As John
Lennon said, "All you need is love."
As for Whetter's second question: "If the novel didn’t begin
with a 'realistic' rendering of the world, why is it expected to do so
now?" The answer to this is quite simple. The question is a red
herring. The novel is expected to do many different kinds of things by
many different kinds of readers. See quotations from Sarah Ellis's review
above. Some readers are interested in how novels chart the history of
ideas; others are more interested in the "Winnie-the-Pooh
factor." This is also unremarkable.
Another quotation, this one from John Barth: Traditionalist
excellence is no doubt preferable to innovative mediocrity (but there's
not much to be said for conservative mediocrity; and there's a great deal
to be said for inspired innovation).
Finally on this quotation: "If you want to read the book, you have to read the
book." What I think Glover is getting at is, read the book for
what it is; don't try to impose one sets of expectations on a book that
the book itself cannot sustain. Put another way: Dear Reader: Respect
the author. Let the author take you on a journey. Surrender. Listen.
Read with both calm and fury. . . .
And consider this! Consider the challenge I have set for myself: To
answer the question, "What is Glover up to in these
novels?"
I have read the novels, but have I read the novels?
Dear Reader: This is for you to decide.
The Art of Desire: The Fiction of Douglas
Glover
Edited by Bruce Stone, Contributors: Bruce Stone, Louis I. MacKendrick,
Claire Wilkshire, Lawrence Mathews, Phil Tabokow, Don Sparling, Philip
Marchand, Stephen Henighan, Douglas Glover w/ Bruce Stone (interview)
Oberon Press, 2004
The blurb on the back cover tells you what you need to know:
The essays collected here are meant to help readers navigate the
complexities of Glover's literary terrain. Taken together, they deal
with the total oeuvre, suggesting something of the scope of Glover's
work and the range of his vision, which is limited only by the
imaginative capacity of his audience. In Glover, readers are uplifted by
being introduced to other possibilities of being, transcending the
common, the ordinary and the familiar.
In his essay, "The Problem of the Artist in 16
Categories of Desire," Philip Marchand, books columnist for the
Toronto Star, writes:
Glover, along with Margaret Atwood and Mordecai Richler, has been
part of a threesome of English Canadian writers who have a very strong
comic and satiric bent, and have spent a lot of time meditating on
Canada. ... Glover's meditations ranked highest on the scale of
intellectual sophistication (130-131).
High praise indeed: Glover more intellectually sophisticated than Atwood and Richler.
Hopefully I've articulated some of Glover's complexity in
comments and quotations in the first two sections of this essay. For a
quick illustration of Glover's dexterity of mind, I quote from the
interview with the author that concludes The Art of Desire:
GLOVER: ... Language, it seems to me, is this wonderfully elaborated
symbolic system for modelling reality which doesn't work. That's the
pathos of logos (172).
"The pathos of logos." The tragedy of logic, might be
one way to translate that. Glover elaborates:
GLOVER: Think about this. Books, like sentences and words, chop
reality into bits. They offer a fantasy of closure. A good book ought to
do away with that particular lie and abolish the end. So in Elle, for
example, I enclose the book in another story. The second story -- the
one-eyed man, the children and their sand statues, the stolen boy --
implies that beyond the book there is something going on that is
inexplicable, morally alien and strangely recursive. The outer story is
bigger than the inner story (172).
"The outer story is bigger than the
inner story." If you want to read the book, you need to read many
books, might be one way to translate that. No story is ever
complete, might be another paraphrase.
Northrop Frye begins The Educated Imagination (1963) with a
series of questions: "What good is the study of literature?"
"What difference does the study of literature make in our social or
political or religious attitude?" Then he begins to answer these
questions, saying "The kind of problem that literature raises is not
the kind of problem that you ever 'solve.'" All of this occurs on the
first page. What I remember from The Educated Imagination is Frye's
assertion that the order you read books will affect how you read them.
That is, for example, if you read Orwell's 1984 before you read
Martin Amis's Money, then you will understand the allusion Amis is
making when he refers to "Room 101." But it's not just that, as
a reader, you will understand individual points of story or metaphor --
it's that the more you read, the more you ought to see the connections
between all stories. "Intertextuality" is the lit crit
word for this. Of course, Frye went on to argue that the Bible was The
Great Code -- but we don't need to follow him there to see the common
sense of his earlier position. Which I bring up because, it seems to me,
having a sense of intertextuality is essential to grappling with
what's happening in Glover's novels.
Incidentally, I can't swear that Frye actually does say what I've
suggested in The Educated Imagination. I flipped through my copy
(read 15 years ago) and couldn't find that passage underlined. What I did
find in my ancient scrawl was a quotation from Aristotle I'd written
inside the front cover: "What is impossible but can be believed
should be preferred to what is possible but unconvincing." I have no
idea where that quotation comes from.
The Art of Desire: The Fiction of Douglas
Glover: A quick overview:
- 172 pages
- Editor Bruce Stone "first encountered Douglas Glover's fiction
at a public reading given by the Vermont College faculty, a regular
component of the residency sessions for that institution's MFA
program" (7).
- The Art of Desire consists of six essays, a short interview
with Glover, and two introductory surveys of Glover's work.
- The first survey is titled "A Writer's Guide to Douglas
Glover's Fiction" and is written by Bruce Stone (pages 11-67).
- The second survey is titled "The Fictions of Douglas Glover: A
Preliminary Survey" and is written by Louis K. MacKendrick (pages
68-81).
- The six essays explore different aspects of Glover's fiction.
Briefly, the topics are
- "voice," complexity of; Glover's innovative use of;
- "meaningfulness" in Glover's fiction;
- "ironic reconsiderations of Canadian/American
stereotypes" in Glover's fiction;
- "historical fiction" and how that term may or may not
apply to The Life and Times of Captain N.;
- "the problem of the artist" in Glover's fiction; and
- the influence of Don Quixote on Glover's fiction.
For the purpose of example, here's the beginning of "La Corriveau,"
the first story of 16 Categories of Desire, Glover's 2000
short
story collection:
I wake up the next morning in my little rented tourist flat on rue des
Ramparts with a really terrible headache and a strange dead man in bed
next to me.
First, let me tell you that nothing like this has ever happened to me
before.
In bed with a dead man -- never.
Often they may have seemed dead. You know -- limp, moribund,
unimaginative, sleepy or just drunk to the point of oblivion. But until
now I have avoided actual morbidity in my lovers (11).
This fragment, perhaps, is enough to suggest how the core of Glover's
fiction revolves around the essay topics listed above. Okay, let's set
aside "ironic reconsiderations of Canadian/American stereotypes"
and "historical fiction" for now. Those two topics aside, we are
left with a compelling fragment of a woman's voice. Here is what
Claire Wilkshire, author of the essay on "voice" has to say
about that topic:
Reading strategies that favour voice reveal aspects of fiction that
might otherwise remain obscure: the ways in which direct and indirect
speech function both in characterization and in constructing the
oppositions that create narrative tension; the complexity of the
relations among figures (for example, the author, implied author,
narrator and characters) and the points at which they overlap or
separate; and the broad range of languages that combine to form that
strange and variegated thing that is called narrative voice (82).
In her essay, Wilkshire examines Glover's story "Red" and
suggests "to pay attention to voice is to expose the opposite
characteristics that create character, the tensions and contradictions
between utterances, to uncover the multiple voices at work within a
narrative voice" (90). If you want to listen to the voice, you
need to listen to the voices. Think, for example, about Hamlet,
perhaps literature's most famous internally conflicted character. His
representation of himself to others is inconsistent. He becomes the centre
of concern in the Royal court. What's up with Hamlet? Perhaps, even now,
it's impossible to say. What we can say is, the Prince of Denmark is
working through his issues. The play dramatizes his anxieties. Within the
play, meaning is highly unsettled. So it is in Glover's fiction, and the
way Glover constructs character through voice is one way to examine his
approach to fiction. In the fragment from "La Corriveau" the
voice says "this has ever happened to me before." The shock of
the unexpected situation repeats in Glover's fiction. In Elle, the
main character is thrust off a 16th century French vessel and deserted in
the Canadian wilderness. Kafka is often cited as a postmodern percursor
because of the predominance of "dislocation" in his fiction.
Glover's work explores similar themes -- but I hesitate to link him too
closely to the author of The Castle. Each is distinctive, also.
"Meaningfulness" and "the problems of the artist"
are two other topics from the essays in The Art of Desire. They
are closely related. Generally speaking, the problem of the artist is
"how to make meaning" or "how to communicate something
meaningful." But what is "meaning"? And if one understands
meaning to be problematic, as Glover clearly does ("the pathos of
logos"), then one's conception of art can only be problematic also.
Though must ask, problematic for whom? the artist/writer? the
audience/reader? all of the above?
In the "problem of the artist" essay, Philip Marchand looks
specifically at the collection 16 Categories of Desire. He
suggests:
the book's most salient theme [is] the figure of the failed artist --
a figure who showed up, in one form or another, in most of the stories.
On re-reading the book ... I realized how much this failed artist motif
was intertwined, in the stories, with Glover's characteristic
meditations on Canada, and specifically on the relationship between
English-speaking Canada and French-speaking Canada (130).
Here we might note that the themes of two of the other essays were
"Canadian/American stereotypes" and "historical
fiction." And also that the fragment from "La Corriveau" is
spoken by an anglophone narrator in Quebec City. The title of that story
is also, obviously, French, while the author is not. Again, we find
ourselves talking about instability, the crossing of boundaries, and we
are not far from discussing how language constructs realities which
conflict in an innumerable variety of potentially dramatic combinations.
Indeed, Lawrence Mathews, in the "meaningfulness" essay,
notes a 1991 interview of Glover:
Glover's conscious abandonment of "moral fiction" ... is
neatly illustrated by Melissa Hardy's attempt to get him to talk about
the significance of the fact that in many of his stories men leave
women, or are about to leave women. Glover replies by saying that his
primary concern is not thematic in this sense at all: "...it's
simply a kind of game-playing -- you have conflict, and you don't have
conflict in the man and woman agree on everything... when I put men and
women on the page, I am thinking of strategies for generating plots
rather than symbols." This sort of attitude leads Hardy to comment,
later in the interview, "I think if someone were to adopt a
critical stance to what you're saying, I suppose he would say, if
Douglas Glover is just playing games, he's not writing from the heart,
he lacks sincerity." Glover replies: "It depends what you mean
by sincerity, I guess. If you mean, Does Douglas Glover sincerely
believes in the factual truth of his stories? Is he sincerely advocating
some political or ideological line? then I'm not sincere. But if you
mean, Is Glover sincerely trying to make the most beautiful piece of
writing he can?, then I'm sincere" (93-94).
The pathos of logos. Glover's fictions do not represent reality
because reality cannot be represented. Language is a system of arbitrary
signs. Stories are language patterns that repeat through time. Literature
= beauty.
The fragment from "La Corriveau" is clearly not
"realistic." The voice is comic, the situation exaggerated, the
verisimilitude stretched beyond credibility. It is, thus, clearly a
fiction -- and a compelling fiction. Who doesn't want to know: What
happens next? The situation is set; the voice clear, direct; the writer
has his readers on edge; he has created dramatic tension; we're off to the
races.
One critical note: if you want to "navigate the complexities of
Glover's literary terrain," to my mind, first read Glover's essay
collection Notes Home From A Prodigal Son. Then read The Art of
Desire. Notes Home... presents Glover on Glover. The Art...
presents others on Glover. And if you only read one thing, read (as I
noted above) read Glover's essay in Notes Home... "Masks of I"
-- which outlines two opposing theories of the novel:
one championed by Percy Lubbock in The Craft of Fiction (1921) and
one outlined by E.M. Forster in Aspect of the Novel (1927). Glover
shows not only that opposites do not need to negate each other and that
novels are about
making up things. He also says a lot about his own approach to fiction --
and his influences: notably Mikhail Bakhtin and Milan Kundera. Other
influences noted in Notes Home... are East German writer Christa
Wolf and Quebecois writer Hubert Aquin, suicide victim in 1977 and winner
of the CBC's "Canada Reads" program in 2001 for his novel Next
Episode.
In Notes Home... Glover says about Wolf's work:
She is saying that to be oneself, to feel oneself, to discover
oneself, amongst all the conflicting messages, prescriptions and
prohibitions of contemporary culture, is difficult, if not impossible,
anywhere (62).
One could easily say something similar about Glover's fictions.
*
And it is here, once again, that we turn ourselves to the questions: What
is Glover up to in his novels? What is Glover's "famous historical
imagination"?
*
First, the territory under discussion, the novels:
Now
is the appropriate time to go back to the two essays in The Art of
Desire that directly address historical elements in Glover's fiction.
First, Phil Tabakow looks at "Canadian/American stereotypes" in
Glover's story "Swain Corliss, Hero of Malcolm's Mill (now Oakland,
Ontario), November 6, 1814." Then Don Sparling considers how the term
"historical fiction" is commonly understood and how it may or
may not relate to The Life and Times of Captain N..
Tabakow:
Douglas Glover's apparently tongue-in-cheek
postmodernist short story from his 1989 collection A Guide to Animal
Behaviour about a skirmish in Ontario between American frontiersmen
and Canadian irregulars during The War of 1812 deconstructs with a
surprising blend of deadpan humour and poetic imagery the enduring myth
of the Violent American and the Peaceable Canadian (109).
Sparling:
Glover uses the American Revolution as a kind of
paradigm for when "the modern view of history" begins, with
the separation of the individual from the past and community (history)
and the present and the surrounding world (nature). This kind of history
is discussed by Oskar, who sees it as "a hypothesis about past
events, cast in terms of cause and effect, based on evidence and
stretching back further and further in time." In contrast, there
are the myths and legends of the Indians, which "explain the world
as if it had formed just yesterday. They are organized like dreams and,
in retelling, become the collective dreams of a people." Oskar goes
on: "By writing history down, we try to extend the explanation of
the present deep into the past. But the savage, in his dreams, seeks to
extend the present laterally, as it were, across the axis of time"
(128).
Sparling concludes: "This extending the present
laterally, across the axis of time, seems to me to be a major part of
Glover's understanding of how contemporary historical fiction should
work" (128).
Indeed, this concept of time on two axes is key to
grappling towards an understanding of Glover's "historical
imagination." As is an understanding of the differences between
written and oral cultures, and the narratives of the powerful and the
dispossessed.
Two of Glover's novels are set in the past (The Life and Times of Captain N. and
Elle), but they are deeply concerned with concepts and
"issues" that are starkly contemporary, while the other under
discussion here, The South Will Rise At Noon, uses the conceit of a
film set to pull the past into the present, or at least the 1980s, the
present when the book was published.
Of course, any "historical fiction" could be
said to work on two axes, since the reader always reads the book in the
present and the action is always set in the past. But what Sparling is
articulating about Glover's fiction is much more than the difference in
time between the reader and the narrative action.
For example, when Tabakow says Glover uses "a
surprising blend of deadpan humour and poetic imagery [to deconstruct] the enduring myth
of the Violent American and the Peaceable Canadian," he's saying
(wink, nudge) that Glover is writing against the Canadian Nationalist
Impulse (CNI) that encrypts all Canadians at birth with the knee-jerk
reaction: Canada, good; USA, bad. The CNI has been broadly credited with
being a positive life force, especially post-1967, though it has waned
since the Free Trade Election (1988), and flared in spikes now and again,
most notably perhaps in the broad consensus against the U.S.-led War in
Iraq II. CNI as a literary influence was cooled considerably since the
1970s, but there remains remarkably little Canlit that
"complicates" the mythology of the nation's mother-milk.
Glover's fictions, if they do nothing else, complicate inherited
narratives. His stated influences (Aquin, Wolf) are dissidents, and
Glover is perhaps Canada's leading dissident writer. While Atwood rails
against the US Empire (an astonishingly easy target), Glover better than
anyone holds up the mirror to our national camp tales. He is the
mirror-holder, Canadian nationalism the smoke. Glover questions. He
"deconstructs." He tells us "language ... is this wonderfully elaborated
symbolic system for modelling reality which doesn't work."
Is this getting too complicated?
In The Last Honest Man: Mordecai Richler (An Oral
Biography) ["by" Michael Posner], Richler is quoted saying,
"The novelist's primary moral responsibility is to be the loser's
advocate" (41). Richler surely believed that during the early stage
of his career, when he was a loyal socialist, or at least well-schooled in
Marxist influence (see The
Acrobats). Marxism defines society as a narrative of class struggle.
President Bush could have been an adherent when he said, "You're with
us or you're against us." The Cold War was a Marxist construct, one
the world is rapidly recreating. (Okay, bi-polar politics go back before
Marx -- but the point here is simple: one can see the world as
"us" and "them", or one can see a world awash in
ambiguity, measured by tools that don't seem to reflect the
"reality" we experience or behave in the ways we expect.) Plato
spoke of philosophy as a means to truth; Aristotle spoke of rhetoric as
the available means of persuasion. Is there eternal truth? Or is there
only the passing sands of time? Certainty versus uncertainty. The
"moral responsibility" of the novelist versus "the pathos
of logos."
Or as Glover wrote in Notes Home from a Prodigal Son:
My apprenticeship ended with the realization that the
goal of literature is not simply truth, which is bourgeois and
reductive, but a vision of complexity, an endless forging of connections
which opens outward into mystery (166).
Glover follows Nabokov in rejecting the moral
responsibility of art. But that doesn't mean he is on the side of the
owners against the workers. He rejects the bi-polar nature of the
proposition. As he told Melissa Hardy, his approach to his writing is to
"sincerely try[] to make the most beautiful piece of
writing he can." His approach, within Canadian letters, has caused
confusion. Is he one of us or not? Is he picking fights or not?
Specifically, Glover is not picking fights. He is respectful of different
aesthetic approaches -- he also challenges his readers to move beyond the
over-simplification of categories most commonly accept as fact (e.g.
Canadian nationalism is an unalloyed good). He is speaking from a high
vantage point, articulating a historical perspective of the novel too
seldom heard in Canadian literary discussions. As quoted above, here is
Glover again on the history of the novel:
the novel followed several historical trajectories at once. While one
kind of novel followed the path of conventional realism, what we might
call an alternative tradition of self-consciousness, complexity,
experiment, elaboration and playfulness has flourished simultaneously,
though perhaps with leaner commercial success (The
Enamoured Knight, 88).
Glover's book-length essay on Don Quixote makes
clear not just his interest in, but his knowledge about, complicated
narrative techniques, devices, patterns -- and his engagement in the
eternal struggle between the quotidian and the way people use language to
create both the functional and dysfunctional mythologies that enable and
disable their lives. Cervantes great protagonist might be history's
greatest and best example. Though Glover's characters are superb
contemporary Canlit examples, too.
What is Glover's "famous historical
imagination"? Our histories are our stories, our
stories are us, our stories make no sense, and neither do we. At least,
our stories don't make sense in the ways we normally think that they make
sense. (How does one "make sense"? Take a large pot, fill with
water .... double, double, toil and trouble ....). (Is Glover our
Shakespeare? No, that's someone else's essay. ...).
What is Glover's "famous historical
imagination"? To my mind, it is most alive in The Life and Times of Captain N. ,
which convinced me that if Glover is not our Shakespeare, he is at least
our Faulkner.
*
An interlude, as we sputter towards the conclusion (from my 2001 interview with
Glover):
TDR: I have been reading backwards through your catalogue, and it
seems to me that your narratives often articulate the boundaries of
different conflicts political, aesthetic, sexual, sociological, etc.
simultaneously. You seem to be both seeking the appropriate terms to
define a certainty and also never arriving at one. For example, in Notes
from a Prodigal Son, you say about East German writer Christa Wolf:
"She is saying that to be oneself, to feel oneself, to discover
oneself, amongst all the conflicting messages, prescriptions and
prohibitions of contemporary culture, is difficult, if not impossible,
anywhere" (62). Similar sentiments repeat in The Life and Times
of Captain N., which takes place in the context of the backwoods
warfare of the American Revolution ("We Rebels & Tories &
Whites & Indians are having a violent debate whose Subject is the
Human Heart" (162). Your approach appears to be both sensible and
relatively unique on the Canadian literary scene, which often frames its
purpose in sociological terms (i.e., Canadian culture is necessary for
national identity). Are you self-conscious about working against popular
conceptions about what it means to be a Canadian writer? Is Canadian
literature all it's pumped up to be?
GLOVER: The setting up of opposites as a mode of conjecture is, of
course, the form of the aphorism. Kant uses a version of this in the
sections of the Critique of Pure Reason called the Antinomies and
the Paralogisms, where he juxtaposes apparently true but contrary
propositions about the nature of reality and argues for both. Nietszche
wrote aphorisms. Adorno's gorgeous Minima Moralia is all
aphorisms. The aphorism is an ancient ironic form, highly artificial,
but with a bite. You can only write aphorisms in the attack mode, with a
tone of arrogance. Here's one I wrote to a student who was complaining
about having to learn aphorisms: There are two kinds of readers--the
adventurers who glory in the breathtaking audacity and risk of a
well-turned aphorism and the wienies who, lacking courage themselves,
find it an affront in others. The Life and Times of Captain N. contains
passages of extended aphorism called "Oskar's Book about
Indians" in which oral cultures and literate cultures are opposed
on a variety of verbal torsion points: e.g. history, memory, names,
ritual, story-telling, books. Nietszche called his aphorisms "Versuch"
--
"trials" or "experiments" -- much the way Montaigne
called his essays "essais". I think a person who writes from
this rhetorical position is always on the outside of received opinion
and traditional knowledge because nothing is taken for granted and all
thought is conjectural rather than descriptive.
Whether Canadian literature is all it's pumped to be is not a
question that interests me. On the other hand, there are some books
written by Canadians I love.
Ah, yes. What was I trying to get at there? A long
preamble, followed by two quick questions. The second question got a short
quick answer. The first question got an answer that is dense, though
interesting, and, on the surface at least, beside the point. What was the
point? The study of Canadian literature has tended to focus on definition
("what is Canadian literature?") and it has tended to canonize
books that assist with the definition of Canada ("what does it mean
to be Canadian?"). Glover's fiction, at times, seems to be intensely
interested in these questions -- Elle's narrator, for example,
makes off-hand comments about the troubles of Canada, comments rife with
complex humour -- but, at the same time, Glover's narratives often
(always?) resist reductive or definitive readings. "That's the
pathos of logos." Glover's narratives are, to borrow his own words,
positioned "outside of received opinion
and traditional knowledge because nothing is taken for granted and all
thought is conjectural rather than descriptive."
If Canada is the world's most post-modern country, a
con-federation (a country conned into believing it's federated) -- a
country that not only embraces multiculturalism, but is made up of
multi-nations -- (and it is) -- then Glover's fiction, more than the fictions of anyone
else to date, entrances us with beauty, opens us into mystery, shows us
that we can be our stories and take them apart, too. But we must take them
apart, if we are to keep them alive, if they are to keep us alive.
The book is called The Art of Desire for a reason.
Desire is the affirmative response to life. It is also the cause of
heartbreak and misery -- and the core of stories. Desire sets up
expectation, narratives fulfill or deny that expectation. In The Enamoured Knight,
Glover wrote powerfully about the role of desire in Don Quixote and
other novels. Desire provides the narrative stickiness in Glover's
work that verisimilitude, perhaps, might provide in the work of other
writers. In a world where, as Glover says of Christina Wolf's fiction,
"to be oneself, to feel oneself, to discover oneself, amongst all the
conflicting messages, prescriptions and prohibitions of contemporary
culture, is difficult, if not impossible" -- is a world where
language does not work -- desire is perhaps the universal glue. It is the
still point around which all else turns.
Glover on desire:
It's occurred to me that human nature is paradoxical in relation to difference and identity. We all want to stay home and be comfortable and yet we're also drawn to love, exploration and translation. We go back and forth, or some of us are more one way than the other. Change can be awfully irritating. ... And if you're not ready for it, you curl up and die. ... Sometimes redemption is just an intrusion. ... And sometimes, when you crack out of yourself and really see the other, you become a better
person (The Art of Desire, 172).
Glover defines redemption as "being brought back, pulled out of,
rescued -- it gets you out of one place and into a different place.
Difference is the operative word. Redemption means changing yourself"
(169). It means, I think he's saying, to be made interesting. Staying
within oneself, never challenging oneself with the stories of others; this
is not interesting; this is heat-death; this is "the end of
history;" this is ideological purity and the NHL lockout and all
things wrong with the world. Desire forces us out of ourselves, to
confront others, to live, be made interesting, redeemed. This is the core
of Glover's famous historical imagination. The past is never past, said
Faulkner. Glover goes one better. Not only is the past in the present, but
the present is in the past. The confrontation between the two is to the
redemption of each. Hallelujah!
More Glover (from the story "16 Categories of Desire" from book of same title):
Mama, I say one time, why it so hard to get a man to do you? Seem like it ought to be a simple thing. Say come here fella and bathe me in your jets of sperm. Mama pretend she don't hear me. And I ain't found a man yet man enough to respond to that particular request. I miss Sister Mary Buntline, who would be laughing now. She say her snatch was a miracle, the eighth effing wonder of the world and a proof of God. I say, Mama, Sister Mary Buntline some kind of saint. And Mama sniff and say Sister Mary Buntline end up married to an ex-priest named Leonard Malfy and three rat-face apostate children running a AIDS clinic in Seattle. Boys, I say, that sure sound bad all right. Sound like Hell on earth. It sound like pure-d evil all right. Jesus. Married with kids and a job. What sane decent woman would want
that?
This passage is not only terrific prose, it shows how
Glover uses desire to set up expectations in the reader, then confound
those expectations in interesting ways. At the beginning of the third
section of this essay, I quoted Glover -- "The outer story is
bigger than the inner story" -- and suggested intertextuality
was key to understanding his approach to fiction. In the end, I didn't say
much about that, specifically, but I want to reinforce that point here:
"What sane decent woman would want
that?" Why is this funny? Because we've heard echoes of it before.
If we are readers, we hear echoes of all stories in all other stories. As
readers, we are open to the mystery that fiction invites us to participate
in. In The Enamoured Knight, Glover showed how stories fit within
stories in Don Quixote. The process of story-making, in Glover's
fictions, in all fictions, has no end. If you want to read the novels,
read the novels. Read all of the novels. All novels. Turn off the
computer. Read.
*
Have I read the novels? Really, I'm not quite sure. Maybe
I'll go back. Start again. ...
Michael Bryson is the
editor of The Danforth Review.
|