CBC's Canada Reads is a bit of a horrorshow
A dangerous farce: Thoughts on the hijacking of Canada Reads
Canada Reads is a literary contest crossed with reality TV. This year's edition, hosted by Jian Ghomeshi, includes among its five finalists Vancouver's own Carmen Aguirre, a playwright, actress and author of Something Fierce, the memoir of a revolutionary daughter. It tells her story of a youth spent amidst the tumult of underground and exile political work aiding the struggle against the dictatorship of General Pinochet in Chile.Matched up with the five books are five "celebrity" panellists, each advocating for one of the titles. On Monday's opening episode panellist Anne-France Goldwater, a Quebec lawyer, launched this verbal attack: "Carmen Aguirre is a bloody terrorist. How we let her into Canada, I don't understand." The appropriately named Goldwater also insulted another finalist, Prisoner of Tehran author Marina Nemat, saying her story was "not true."
Come again? Had a U.S. Republican presidential candidate somehow snuck onto a CBC show about books?
The attack on the integrity and honesty of torture survivor Nemat is disgusting. So is the attack on Aguirre, and it carries other serious and alarming aspects that should not be dismissed as mere "controversy" or soap opera/reality TV drama.
First of all, the smears against Aguirre are potentially threatening not only to her reputation but to her personal safety and security. In this day and age, "terrorist" is pretty much the worst and most serious thing you can call anyone.
Furthermore, the insult is not just against Aguirre, but can be viewed as a slap in the face to the entire community of exiles and their descendants from Chile and other South American dictatorships. More than 7,000 Chileans and others fled to Canada in the 1970s, escaping brutal coup d'etats, and massacres, disappearances and general persecution of leftists and regime opponents. They made it to Canada only after sustained campaigns by social movements here demanding they be given refuge. Many continued to resist the dictatorships by various means, including -- yes -- in some cases lending support to forms of armed struggle. These exiles (and those who remained, often in perilous underground conditions) were all supporters of resistance movements fighting for democracy and social justice -- not terrorists of any kind. They were and are the victims of terrorism: state terrorism. Many were also victims of torture, just like Marina Nemat.
Perhaps most dangerously of all, Goldwater's crude anti-immigrant line plays into a climate of xenophobia and fear being whipped up by the powers-that-be in Canada today. This has real consequences for many refugees and others at risk of deportation.
Well, the terrorist won
I don't know her personally, but she's a friend of a friend. And she's the one who won the highly controversial and much mediatized "Lola vs. Eric" case, now awaiting a Supreme Court decision. Common-law spouses have fewer rights than in the rest of Canada under Québec's civil code on breakup - just child support, as far as I know. But Goldwater succeeding, in a challenge under the provincial and federal Charters, in getting the court of appeal to award her alimony and monthly support. Given that Eric is a billionaire, and Lola is a far younger Brazilian ex-model, you can imagine the media coverage over the years. She got $50 million plus $56,000 per month. [That is not a typo.] The Supreme Court can't have ruled yet, or it would be all over the front pages.
Honestly, I always had the impression (without knowing at all) that Goldwater was a lefty type, just based on the circles my friend frequents. She does have a tendency to shoot from the lip. I don't know any more than that.
ETA: Back to Lola vs. Eric - Québec is said to have far more common-law unions than the rest of Canada. Some say that one reason is that it's easier to disentangle, because of the Code - but I always thought that was a view that minimized the financial dependency that women disproportionately incur in such relationships, veut ou veut pas. If this win is upheld, it will have dramatic consequences. I imagine the Court would give Québec time to bring its law up to snuff, as they have been wont to do recently.
Sorry for the drift, but you asked.
ETA squared: Oh yeah - and she represented the gay couple in the case which legalized same-sex marriage in Québec, before it became legal in Canada.
Yeah, I commented on this under the article.
What a miracle. Seems as if the bullshit did get called as bullshit, and the panelists managed to make a decent decision after all, even though they are completely untrained in the field and don't have their degrees in radio book panel judging.
Phew.... CBC really went recklessly out on a limb and dodged a bullet on this one. Hopefully they have learned their lesson and will set up a proper commission to pick their jurists for next year.
(edit)
http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/books/carmen-aguirre-on-terrorism.html
With Canada Reads, the CBC is bottom-feeding on culture
The way I read it, "problematize" is not a value judgment. Kuitenbrouwer is just saying that the problem the CBC already finds itself in from adopting this reality-TV style is exacerbated by non-fiction, which introduces a whole host of other ways in which this crass format hurts reading. I don't think she's wrong.
I think what actually happened is that more people were exposed to these works than might otherwise have been.
The authors clearly supported what was going on, and were active participants in the forum.
All this kerfuffle because someone said something controversial and perhaps out of line - a gaffe which was dealt with, and which resulted in some actual serious discussion, and the book under attack being recognized above those devoted to the subjects of hockey and rock and roll.
"Extremely damaging to the future success of writing and reading"? Come on.
What is damaging is to say that real books can only be read and discussed in certain places, by certain people, with the requisite gravitas.
Sorry, I thought the article was elitist and far-fetched.
The CBC is effectively saying that books can only be discussed by people with "coontroversial" personalities. And what you describe, Winston, that more people will read Aguirre's book because of this "kerfuffle" is exactly the problem: readers are reading it not for the motives and ethos which prompted her to write it, but for some elusive and nebulous idea of "controversy." If that becomes the chief criteria by which the Canadian public starts to value books, isn't readin-at least insofar as it exists on pap shows like this--doomed?
If CBC put all its eggs in this basket when it comes to literary promotion and criticism, Kuitenbrower might have a case. But so long as there is still more focused literary coverage on shows like Writers and Company, and any number of shows from Ideas to Tapestry to inverviews on Q itself, I think she might be ignoring an important part of the picture. Sorry if I don't get the "extremely damaging" part about publicity.
Did I think it was a bit odd to have Don Cherry alongside Tommy Douglas in the running for the Greatest Canadian? Sure, but I don't think it cheapened history and the news, because what it did more than anything else is get more people talking about the issues. where they were not before.
And if CBC is cheapening literature by resorting to, yes, a game, it begs the question of why she is spreading her ideas through a medium, which is not commercial free, but which anyone can buy by the column inch to sell cars, burgers or underwear. Is that a proper forum for such sober thoughts?
She opens her argument complaining about how overworked and underpaid authors are. One would think from that starting point she might reach a conclusion that their works should be exposed to new audiences so that they can sell more books. I guess not.
Besides, if she wants to criticise a week-long radio show because it is competitive and not suited to the serious nature of literature, it begs the question of what kind of sausage factory exists in publishing houses, to weed out what gets the chop.
Time for Canada Reads to be relegated to the dustbin.
While we're at it, time to excise all those clown and fool interludes from Shakspeare's works, eh? After all, I'm sure it was something he was pressed into for commercial reasons to get the mob in the door, It's not as if it is something that should properly be associated with real art.
International Festival of Authors
The Word on the Street
This is Not a Reading Series (TINARS)
Sorry, some of these are Toronto-centric.
And since these are mostly live events, no they aren't like anything on the radio. But they're great literary events.
As they should be Maysie. After all, that's why the others can have Anne of Green Gables, The Beachcombers, oh, and The Plouffe Family. See? We Torontonians are sensitive to all the people out in the regions.
*ducks and runs*
@ Maysie
Yes, I spent some time at the Winnipeg Writer's Festival, actually.
Guess which organization was our biggest sponsor, and responsible for virtually all of our marketing?
You tell me, Smith. :)
Ten years ago it was CBC, and they were the ones with cameras and mics there.
You want the documentation, I can send it to you.
Sorry if I am not ready to join in on dancing on the grave yet.
And frankly, I stand by my comment about their broad range of coverage, and my criticism of some of the sniping at Canada Reads.
Unless some people prefer the sound of crickets.
Dude, I'm not doing any dancing. The Canada Reads publicity stunt / "controversy" this year sounds mired in oppressive bullshit.
I've rarely shared my view of the CBC (you don't want to hear it), but was responding to Gaian's question. While there are a number of national, provincial and local events that do damn good programming, the answer is no, there isn't a body on the national media scale that does what the CBC does.
Take that positively or negatively.
Well I see positive and negative things about the CBC's actions and programming, frankly. As for those negative things, I remember that it is not just there to serve my interests, and try to parse those things which offend me and those things which are truly over the line.
And while I regret some of the comments that were made by panelists in this year's Canada Reads, I don't have a problem with the format.
That is to say, if I looked hard I could see things I do not agree with. But again, it is not just there to represent my views.
Speaking of which, anyone listened to "Type A" yet?
Actually I kind of think of "Type A" as a carbon copy of U.S. Radio (with the turnaround that the voice of reason would be seen as the freak) to let people know what we are in for if the CBC goes, or comedy of the same ilk as "This Is That".
I'm baffled by this kind of response. Mostly because of the inherent assumption that the CBC is "representing" the views of a significant portion of its viewers by having Goldwater on CBC reads or by airing three shows which feature Kevin O'Leary.
(I don't want this to turn into another for-or-against CBC thread. For the record, I am unequivolcally supportive of a fully funded public broadcaster and I won't fall for Stevie's trick of underfunding the poor sucker to the point that it begs to be demolished utterly. A friend of mine is running the very impressive Reimagine the CBC initiative, which I hope all babblers support.)
No, what this thread is about is a specific show about reading. I hope the options aren't "take it" or "leave it." What I see is a terrible platform for getting people interested in reading and talking about reading, which damages writers, critics and readers and serves only those who make their living from celebrity and controversy. I don't want any part of that. And that has nothing to do with some flawed vision of making sure "everyone is represented, even the right-wing hacks."
It's not that I don't see your position; I do.
For that matter I hear what Kuitenbrower is saying, though obviously I don't entirely agree.
I just see this situation differently. As in, I don't have any problem with a less-than academic or journalistic forum for books, even one that is a game, for the reasons I stated above. And I certainly don't see it as damaging.
And no, I'm no fan of Mr. O'Leary either, though I have to say Hockey Night in Canada is more of an imposition for me. But those are ongoing programming decisions. As for a book forum like this - which is different - no, I don't have a problem with who they chose, even though some of the participants didn't represent my point of view. I'd be a bit more alarmed if they all did.
And I think the proof of the pudding in this case was that the issues and differences were talked about and dealt with. And I think that is far better than not having them talked about.
(edit)
As I said above I try to make a distinction between those things which I disagree with, and those things which I think are over the line. That would be the difference between the range of panelists for Canada Reads, and the decision to program all-Kevin-all-the time
@ Gaian
She made the mistake, IMO.
As for the producers' decision to bring her in, how would one go about vetting against someone going off on their own tangent and saying something insulting and offensive? Near as I can tell some people do those sort of things from time to time despite organizers' best intentions.
Yes, I am sure next year they will make a point of telling panelists to not call people liars and make personal attacks, just like I am sure in this year and past ones they may have not felt it was necessary to point it out and underline it in red. I am sure some people didn't think it was necessary to ask a presenter to not walk up onstage with a bottle of booze in his hand until it actually happened. It is a lesson learned.
But try as we might to make things safe and professional, some people say and do things that cross the line. THey do it there, and they do it here as well. I think the solution is to deal with it, not try to be more restrictive or shut the whole thing down to try and prevent it from ever happening again.
Because sooner or later it will happen again, despite our best intentions, unless we prefer radio scripted right down to the coughs and breaths.
I don't see that you get my point. The choice is not between a lowbrow model, which must be a reality-show-style spectatcle populated with the most caricaturish personalities available to the public broadcaster; and a highbrow litcrit model which must be populated by Kootenay School of Writer alumni and Gaian. The question is the same that asks if a half-dozen Gordon "F*ck off" Ramsay shows on the Food Network is good for cooking. If a show has a hiring criteria that picks Goldwater as an exemplary participant, the whole structure on which it is founded is broken. It has nothing to do with books, or authors, or readers, or enjoying literature: it has to do with spectacle. And with spectacle, culture always loses.
..because the shit's mostly produced on the public dime? Nobody does it better in that respect...like fer sure.
Debordist!