Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature

by Margaret Atwood

When first published in 1972, Survival was considered the most startling book ever written about Canadian literature. Since then, it has continued to be read and taught, and it continues to shape the way Canadians look at themselves. Distinguished, provocative, and written in effervescent, compulsively readable prose, Survival is simultaneously a book of criticism, a manifesto, and a collection of personal and subversive remarks. Margaret Atwood begins by ''What have been the central preoccupations of our poetry and fiction?'' Her answer is ''survival and victims.'' Atwood applies this thesis in twelve brilliant, witty, and impassioned chapters; from Moodie to MacLennan to Blais, from Pratt to Purdy to Gibson, she lights up familiar books in wholly new perspectives. This new edition features a foreword by the author.

Genres: Nonfiction, Canada, Literary Criticism, Canadian Literature, Essays, Theory, Criticism

352 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1972

About the author

Margaret Atwood was born in 1939 in Ottawa and grew up in northern Ontario, Quebec, and Toronto. She received her undergraduate degree from Victoria College at the University of Toronto and her master's degree from Radcliffe College.

Throughout her writing career, Margaret Atwood has received numerous awards and honourary degrees. She is the author of more than thirty-five volumes of poetry, children’s literature, fiction, and non-fiction and is perhaps best known for her novels, which include The Edible Woman (1970), The Handmaid's Tale (1983), The Robber Bride (1994), Alias Grace (1996), and The Blind Assassin, which won the prestigious Booker Prize in 2000. Atwood's dystopic novel, Oryx and Crake, was published in 2003. The Tent (mini-fictions) and Moral Disorder (short stories) both appeared in 2006. Her most recent volume of poetry, The Door, was published in 2007. Her non-fiction book, Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth ­ in the Massey series, appeared in 2008, and her most recent novel, The Year of the Flood, in the autumn of 2009. Ms. Atwood's work has been published in more than forty languages, including Farsi, Japanese, Turkish, Finnish, Korean, Icelandic and Estonian. In 2004 she co-invented the Long Pen TM.

Margaret Atwood currently lives in Toronto with writer Graeme Gibson.

Associations: Margaret Atwood was President of the Writers' Union of Canada from May 1981 to May 1982, and was President of International P.E.N., Canadian Centre (English Speaking) from 1984-1986. She and Graeme Gibson are the Joint Honourary Presidents of the Rare Bird Society within BirdLife International. Ms. Atwood is also a current Vice-President of PEN International.

Reviews

[Manybooks · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although I both appreciate Margaret Atwood as an author and also realise that she is probably the one Canadian author the most universally, globally recognised and liked, personally, I have ALWAYS found her 1972 Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature considerably more interesting and enlightening than the vast majority of her novels etc. And truly, ever since I (in so-called Senior High) first perused Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature in 1983, when we used Atwood's book as a guide and textbook in grade eleven English, which that year featured primarily Canadian fiction, drama and poetry, I have been simply amazed and in awe at how spot-on Margaret Atwood usually is with her analysis of Canadian literature themes (and that indeed, these presented themes continually seem to repeat themselves in much of both current and past Canadian literature, and both in anglophone and francophone offerings equally).

Therefore, even though Canadian literature as a whole and as an entity is of course now considerably more numerous and varied in scope than it was either in 1972, when Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature was originally published or in 1983, when it served as our grade eleven Canadian literature textbook, Margaret Atwood's musings on specifically the standard "Canadian" themes (including the unfortunate tendency of us Canadians to regularly tend to have a rather dismally low level of self esteem in particular with regard to the merits of our literary achievements as a nation) are as relevant and as commonly encountered now as they were then (and with in particular the thematics of nature as a potential monster, of artistic paralysis, of death and generational family dysfunction very much, very often being as much part of today's Canlit cannon as they were in the past). And yes indeed, if you do desire a well-written, academically sound, astutely observational but nevertheless also basically and for the most part penned and conceptualised for lay, for everyday readers (and thankfully thus not for primarily individuals with advanced university graduate degrees) introduction to Canadian literature and its main and often recurring themes, I do wholeheartedly and warmly recommend Margaret Atwood's Suvival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature (but of course also with the necessary caveat that although as mentioned above, the Canadian literature themes portrayed and analysed are both universally Candian and also relevant for today's Canlit, since Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature was published in 1972, the specific literary examples Margaret Atwood uses to cement and point out her findings, views will naturally be pre 1972).

[Karen· · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ms Atwood is as magnificent a reader as she is a writer. And she's read more Canlit than I probably ever will. Perhaps I'll read less than I might have done after this: she doesn't make it sound terribly cheery.

A point that she freely acknowledges. For example on page 281 she asks the question; " What happens in Canadian literature when boy meets girl? And what sort of boy, and what sort of girl? If you've got this far, you may predict that when boy meets girl she gets cancer and he gets hit by a meteorite...." And then, endearingly, admits that this is more than just a bad joke, it indicates the danger of cliché writing once there is a defined tradition. And what is this tradition, as she discovers and defines it? She detects a pattern in the poetry and fictional prose of Canadian writers of the earlier part of the twentieth century: grim and bare survival, a failure to do anything but stay alive. Unrelieved gloom. A disproportionate toll of death and failure. "Given a choice of the negative or positive aspects of any symbol - sea as life-giving mother, sea as what your ship goes down in; tree as symbol of growth, tree as what falls on your head - Canadians show a marked preference for the negative." (p.45)

Actually, it's hard not to just go on quoting great wads of her wonderfully muscular, smoothly flowing prose that contains the occasional bright rip of a self-deprecating sardonic remark - so superior to anything that I might cough up. And it is extremely hard not to stand in awe of her intellect: here she was in 1972, six years before Orientalism, which is generally seen as the founding text of post-colonial theory, and yet she sees the key pattern of Canadian literature in terms of its position as a colony, and therefore as exploited - a colony as (more quotation I'm afraid) " a place from which a profit is made, but not by the people who live there: the major profit from a colony is made in the centre of the empire." Thus a victim: of economic exploitation and of cultural oppression, first by the British and then later by an invading Americanization. And then the other key feature of the model she proposes is that Canada never had that American idea of the Western Frontier, the push westwards to escape the confines of governmental legislation and discover freedom. When Canadians pushed westwards the Mounties were already there. The push west was into exile (outside) or the garrison (inside).

It's a seductive theory that she proposes and naturally she has chosen the novels and poetry that support her theory. It will add title after title to your TBR list, as long as you have a taste for the morbid, but even if your interest in Canlit is minimal, it is at the same time a magnificent exercise in how to read, how to see the larger pattern behind the minutiae of narrated events, how to recognize the patterns of metaphor and language. And it is also a stirring encomium for the value of national literature in creating identity and a sense of self in the world.

[W.D. Clarke · Rating 3 out of 5]

I survived!
It was actually intermittently enjoyable, as the introductory pages to each chapter were written with a dry wit, though then she dives into the weeds of representative novels and the tone shifts toward the more dryly academic (this evolved out of her MA thesis, if I am not mistaken). So, better than I thought it would be and not a hate-read at all. She actually inspires me to read a few of the 'Canonical' Canucks that I have not heretofore wrestled with (Gabrielle Roy & Marie-Claire Blais, along with then-upstarts [ca. 1972] Ray Smith and David Godfrey). In summation, Survival portrays an imagined homeland of not-always-beautiful losers, victims of a harsh physical environment, victims of an even harsher inherited Calvinism, and victims of domination by colonialism and by the branch-plant economy, resulting in clenched-jaw hollow men and barren crones. Early death, death-by-misadventure, spiritual death, and grim, thwarted desires and ambitions seem to be our collective obsession. Trees, rocks, ice, bugs, and family—all of them will fuck you up, and sometimes all at once. Oh, and did I say Scottish Calvinism?

Otherwise, Atwood barely dips her toe into Quebecois literature here, and skirts entirely works by Native Canadians, but it was just 1972, hey, and we Anglo whiteys were hardly aware of what residential schools and the 'Sixties Scoop' were doing to our First Nations peoples, so that can't really be held against her. And this book is very much a product of a time when cultural nationalism not only seemed plausible, but necessary, a time when Canadian writers seemed to be punching above their weight—especially the poets and singer-songwriters. We shall not look upon its like again. Best cultural product to emerge from English-speaking Canada in the last 10-15 (ok, 25) years? For my money, that would be the long-running TV show The Trailer Park Boys (up to Season 5, anyway). That, and Rohinton Mistry's A Fine Balance....

[Stela · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this is the first time ever I’ve read a book of literary criticism without being familiar with the name of at least some of the writers it was talking about (in fact I know of two of them, Alice Munro and Leonard Cohen, but theses ones are too little discussed to really count).

It was a strange feeling, as when familiar ground becomes suddenly unfamiliar, however, it did not stir any inferiority complex, since I’m fully aware my “Calit” knowledge is very limited. In fact, this is one of the reasons I decided to read it – to guide me through a culture I’ve been curious about since I came here, ten years ago. Another reason is of course, the author – not only I am a big fan of Margaret Atwood but I’ve also been always interested in the iconic writers’ attitude towards the literature of their native country.

The reading was, naturally, beyond expectations – a very original exploration (despite the author’s denial of originality) of a relatively virgin territory – the Canadian literature - and what it has become without a doubt a reference book in this area.

From the very beginning, that is the preface, Margaret Atwood explains why such a study was necessary: to create a real portrait of the Canadian literature, instead of the image the international literature used to promote – of an idyllic Canada as an unspoilt place with happy archaic peasants. The culture of a country, resumes the author, is a map of the mind, revealing who and where its inhabitants are. To know this map is vital in preserving their identity:

For the members of a country or a culture, shared knowledge of their place, their here, is not a luxury but a necessity. Without that knowledge we will not survive.

And survival seems to be the core symbol of the Canadian literature, as it is the island - a live body - for the British literature and the frontier – between the promise and the actuality - in the American one. The survival is therefore the premise of the essay, with its main four “basic victim positions” the author finds: denial of the victim experience; acceptance of the victim role as an act of Fate (will of God, biology, history, etc.); repudiation of the victim role; and finally dissociation from this role by becoming a creative non-victim. It is the writer, of course, who is always in the fourth position although he can write about every one of the four.

All the themes in Canadian literature, says the author, converge to at least one of these positions. The image of the Nature, for example, is despoiled of all romanticism, with its desolate landscapes, dead, unanswering, hostile, for winter reigns like an unforgiving deity. Its relationship with man is always extreme: either the man is threatened and often killed by it or, when man starts winning against Nature, the sympathy shifts to the defeated giant.

If we try translating the uncomfortable relationship between Nature and Man into the four basic victim positions, they could read as follows: position one: pretending that Nature is the good divine mother (while you’re being eaten by mosquitos); position two: Nature is a huge hostile enemy against whom man acquires the will to lose; position three: the giant man beats up the helpless Nature; position four: nature is nature. And isn’t the fourth position the most reasonable one?

Nature is a monster, perhaps, only if you come to it with unreal expectations or fight its conditions rather than accepting them and learning to live with them. Snow isn’t necessarily something you die in or hate. You can also make houses in it.

Not very different is developed the Animal theme. If British animal-stories disguise British society in stories about social relations, and American ones are hunting and/or quest stories, Canadian animal-stories are failure stories, told from the point of view of the animal, where the animal is always a victim, eventually killed however brave it is.

All the other themes explored by Margaret Atwood follow the same pattern: the Indians are not interpreted from a moral point of view (good or bad guys) but by a social one: their persecution; the Settlers and the Explorers either fail (they find nothing, they cannot settle) or are doomed (they find death or the human life is destroyed after settling); the Family is an oppressive environment but they prefer to huddle together instead of wandering in the cold, empty space; the Immigrant is characterised by lack of expectation, he came here only to escape a bad condition elsewhere; the Woman is a Rapunzel who refuses to acknowledge her imprisonment; the Artist is paralyzed in a country with no literary past to build on.

In these circumstances, what kind of a hero can emerge? A futile one, an unconvincing martyr, since Canadian history, according to Margaret Atwood, is unable to create heroes that change society. Their revolutions are failures because Canadians often do not know which side they are on (they are terrified of undermining the authority, the rebellions never had the popular support).

Over all, Canadian literature’s background is rather dark, however powerful in suggestions, handling universal obsessions in quite an original way. It rests to be read for its complete and glorious survival:

…when I discovered the shape of the national tradition I was depressed, and it’s obvious why: it’s a fairly tough tradition to be saddled with, to have to come to terms with. But I was exhilarated, too: having bleak ground under your feet is better than having no ground at all. Any map is better than no map as it is accurate, and knowing your starting points and your frame of reference is better than being suspended in a void. A tradition doesn’t necessarily exist to bury you: it can also be used as material for new departures.

P.S. I made my own short list from the books Margaret Atwood discussed. Here are some of them: Susanna Moodie, Roughing It in the Bush, Farley Mowat, Never Cry Wolf, E.J. Pratt, Brébeuf and His Brethren, Hugh McLennan, Each Man’s Son, Adele Wiseman, The Sacrifice, Don Gutteridge, Riel, Sinclair Ross, As for Me and My House, Marian Engel, The Honeymoon Festival, Margaret Laurence, The Fire Dwellers, Roch Carrier, La Guerre, Yes Sir!, Gabrielle Roy, The Tin Flute, Bill Bisset, Nobody Owns the Earth.

[Czarny Pies · Rating 5 out of 5]

Je viens tout juste de compléter une deuxième lecture de "Survival" de Margaret Atwood que j'avais lu pour la première fois il y a 47 ans quand j'étais en première année de mes études universitaires. Il faut reconnaitre que je l'avais très mal compris à l'époque. Je me crois obligé d'ajouter deux étoiles à ma cote initiale. À 19 ans, je n'avais pas suffisamment lu pour comprendre jusqu'à quel point Atwood avait raison dans son analyse de la littérature canadienne. Surtout, je n'avais rien lu de la poésie canadienne-anglaise qui appuyaient fortement l'analyse d'Atwood.
Au moment d'écrire "Survival", Atwood qui avait gagné le prix du Gouverneur-Général pour la poésie en 1966 était vue comme une poète. Elle avait publié cinq recueils de poésie et seulement deux romans. Elle côtoyait tous les grands poètes canadien-anglais des années 1950, 1960 et 1970 et leurs écrits. Pour comprendre "Survival" il s'agit de le lire. Pour croire à ses thèses, cependant, il connaitre la poésie des contemporains d'Atwood.
La grande thèse d'Atwood est que la littérature canadienne (anglaise et française) est dominé par une mentalité de victime chez les écrivains. Donc on ne trouve pas d'héros qui gagnent dans la littérature. On ne peut pas espérer pour plus que la survie. Normalement, le protagoniste rate son projet et meurt.
L'univers canadiens est épouvantable. La nature est un ennemi. La famille est un prison. Les animaux souffrent. Les autochtones ont la vie dure. Les immigrants s'appauvrissent. Les martyrs meurent pour rien. Chez les femmes les Vénus sont rares et les vieilles biques sont nombreuses. Au Québec les choses ne sont pas meilleures. Le portrait que fait Atwood de littérature canadienne parait aujourd'hui grotesque mais à l'époque où Atwood a écrit "Survival", c'était juste.
Aux yeux d'Atwood c'était le temps pour les auteurs canadiens de mettre cette mentalité de victime ou de perdant derrière eux. C'est exactement ce qu'a fait Atwood qui continue à accumuler des succès et des honneurs.

[Steffi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Angenehme, leicht lesbare Einführung in die kanadische Literatur, die subjektiv und nicht ganz aktuell ist, da sie bereits 1972 verfasst wurde. Dennoch liefert das Buch interessanten Input zur Diskussion, was den eigentlich kanadische Literatur ist oder sein kann. Anhand von Vergleichen zu entsprechenden Motiven in der englischen und der US-amerikanischen Literatur definiert sie, was dem gegenüber das kanadische Motiv sein könnte und belegt dies mit Werken der kanadischen Literatur. So sei beispielsweise das Symbol für die USA die Grenze, als etwas das es zu verteidigen gilt, als etwas das - z. B. gen Westen - verschoben werden kann/konnte. Dem entspräche das Symbol der Insel für die Engländer. Für Kanada benennt sie das titelgebende Überleben (Survival): Der Überlebenskampf gegenüber einer feindlichen Natur, zu Beginn die Auseinandersetzung mit den Ureinwohnern und nicht zuletzt das kulturelle Überleben gegenüber einer omnipräsenten US-amerikanischen Lebensweise.
Atwood dekliniert diese unterschiedlichen Motive/Symbole kapitelweise für verschiedene Bereiche durch: Familie, Natur, Gewalt, Frauen, Tod.
Lesenswert auch in Hinblick auf Atwoods (Früh-)Werk.

[Krista · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked up the book Survival A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature because as much as I do love Canadian Literature, I'm not a terribly critical reader and I thought I could benefit from an esteemed author such as Margaret Atwood pointing me in the direction of what I should be reading. She states in the preface to this book that she undertook its writing with the hope that it could be used as a teaching guide in high school/college and I'm afraid that it came off a little textbookish to me. It certainly took me long enough to read through such a small volume.

For my own benefit, I'm going to keep track of her main argument here (as lifted from Wikipedia):

The central image of the victim is not static; according to Atwood four "Victim Positions" are possible (and visible in Canadian literature). These positions are outlined below.

• Position One: To deny the fact that you are a victim

This is a position in which members of the "victim-group" will deny their identity as victims, accusing those members of the group who are less fortunate of being responsible for their own victimhood.

• Position Two: To acknowledge the fact that you are a victim (but attribute it to a powerful force beyond human control, i.e. fate, history, God, biology, etc.)

In this position, victims are likely to resign themselves to their
fate.

• Position Three: To acknowledge the fact that you are a victim but to refuse to accept the assumption that the role is inevitable

This is a dynamic position in which the victim differentiates between the role of victim and the experience of victim.

• Position Four: To be a creative non-victim

A position for "ex-victims" when creativity of all kinds is fully possible.

.
Further affecting my enjoyment of this study, I must admit, are the facts that I'm not a particular fan of Atwood's writing or politics. I read all of her major works 20+ years ago, and like this book, found them rooted in a different time and not terribly relevant to me. I've read her more modern books as they've been released ( Oryx and Crake, The Penelopiad Canongate Myths, etc.) without enjoyment, more because I think I should than any other reason. After reading such an early book as Survival, I wonder to what degree the author herself would think CanLit has changed in the past 40 years? I remember the official hand-wringing of wondering what a "Canadian Identity" is-- chiefly defined by what we are not; neither British nor American. But wouldn't anyone agree that in today's world Canada has our own seat at the adult table of world affairs? And that our literature stands up against that of any country?

What I liked most about Survival were the snippets of poetry. I'm not inclined to pick up a volume of poetry and these carefully selected lines spoke to me in a way that confirms the form as timeless and universal.

What's packed about her ivory bones
Is cruel to the wondering touch;
Her hard skull rounds the roots of stones
And cannot give or comfort much;

Her lap is sealed to summer showers,
Ice-bound, and ringed in iron hold;
Her breast puts forth its love like flowers
Astonished into hills of cold.

Not here the Sun that frees and warms,
Cherishes between fire and flood:
But far within are Seraph forms,
Are flowers, fountains, milk, blood.

-Jay Macpherson, "The Caverned Woman"


I live in a land where cold has conquered
green things, reigns grey and heavy over phantom
trees.

I am a silent partner of a race that shivers in its
sleep under frost-bound words, whose frail quick
speech is fading.

I am part of a cry all around me
stone with no language
steep cliff
bare blade in my winter heart

-Yves Prefontaine, "Country to Let"



Some ideas for further reading inspired by Survival:

BODSWORTH, Fred, The Last of the Curlews
CARRIER, Roch, La Guerre Yes Sir
COHEN, Leonard, Beautiful Losers
GIBSON, Graeme, Communion
GIBSON, Graeme, Five Legs
LAURENCE, Margaret, ALL!
ROY, Gabrielle, The Tin Flute
WATSON, Sheila, The Double Hook

[Jeanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting and enlightening read on the traditions of Canadian literature.

What is Canadian literature about? A simple enough question in theory but with a more complicated answer that is discussed throughout the book. The short answer is this: survival and victims.

Atwood doesn't paint a pretty picture of our literature, in fact it's the opposite of pretty. Dark, dreary, isolating, pessimistic, etc. are but a few of the words I'd use to describe it.

With such a dreary backdrop though, there is quite the emphasis on the small positive aspects in the foreground that contrast greatly with the background within Canadian literature and I am glad that Atwood points this out.

An absolute must-read for Canadians who are not able to answer the question proposed on their own, and for others who might be curious to see how Atwood's answer is reflected in Canadian literature.

[Maria · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely brilliant! Atwood has showed once again her absolute mastery of the Art. She dances gracefully from novel to poetry, to science fiction, to satire, to essay. Absolutely brilliant piece of work, as always educating but fun a light-hearted. It reminded me of V. Woolf's Three Guineas (esp. the postmodernist, feminist approach). definitely makes for a great read, together with the Edible Woman. I'd give it more stars if I could.

[Daniel Perry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dated, but still relevant, witty and readable--as it approaches its 50th birthday, I'd love to see a sequel on, as the ending asks of the Canadian (literary) experiment, "What happens after survival?"

[Laurie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dated now, but still very insightful and wise.

[Jasmine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Writing in the 1970s, Atwood surveys Canadian literature and identifies a few of its central themes and tendencies. In doing so, she helped bring self-consciousness to the literature of this frigid, confused, often-violent child of Britain, nudging it toward a distinct national identity.

Atwood identifies “survival” as the idea coursing through Canadian literature (in contrast to the US’s “frontier” and England’s “island”): survival against Mother-Nature-the-Monster (having discovered that Canada’s natural bounty was nothing like the idyll pictured from the shores of England), survival against the dominance of its southern neighbour, survival of the francophones in a sea of anglophones.

Survival is precarious in these works. Most of its characters succumb to some travesty or other. Atwood attributes this pessimism to a victimization complex, which she breaks down into four stages: denial of victimhood, resignation to the inescapability of victimhood, belief in the possibility of overcoming victimhood, and some fourth stage of transcendence (more of a theoretical possibility than something typically achieved, in reality or in literature). Most Canadian literature lingers in the second phase.

The book is well-structured; each chapter investigates a particular facet (nature, animals, settlers and immigrants, family, women, francophones, artists, death, failure), critiquing poems and novels that touch on these topics or motifs. Each chapter comes with a shortlist of 3-4 key works and a longlist of perhaps a dozen referenced works. Atwood’s writing is colourful, wry, and incisive, and her tour through CanLit is well-paced and enjoyable.

Having surveyed the previous century or so of writing, the work is now over half a century old. It was highly influential in shaping Canadian literary criticism, and thus the Canadian publishing industry broadly. It is therefore undoubtedly dated. I thought this was particularly true of the chapter on artists: with the advent of CanCon laws and funding for the arts (not to mention self-consciousness as a nation or the ease of distributing media across the globe), the lack of audience is no longer so existential for Canadian artists. Canada has also changed. Now several generations later, our identities as and associations with settlers and immigrants have shifted. Indigenous literature was absent from Atwood's investigation due to its near-total exclusion from the publishing industry. A modern revision would presumably investigate ideas of indigeneity and settler-colonialism founded on Indigenous literature that has since made it to print.

Still, I found it very easy to see themes of survival and the ways it ripples through other topics in many of the Canadian works I have read lately. Ducks is all about survival in the bleak capitalism and soul-crushing misogyny of the oil sands, first as a bare survival but then transitioning to an insistence on thriving and overcoming victimhood. Station Eleven is a post-apocalyptic narrative; survival means navigating a sparse and hostile world to find meaning in life. Study for Obedience picks up on many of the family themes Atwood discusses, with the brother taking the position of domineering patriarch. To this protagonist, survival means finding a way to coexist as a Jewish woman and an immigrant with the backwards villagers.

This is, obviously, a book about Canadian Literature from front-to-back. But I think it holds interest outside that narrow scope too. By honing in on this niche, Atwood demonstrates the value — or even the necessity — of literary critique and literature for developing a cohesive community identity. This work therefore may be of interest for someone hoping to develop other national or political identities. Second, although dated, Atwood hits upon some very persistent aspects of the Canadian identity. Those interested in learning who Canada really is, or taking a good look at themselves in the mirror, may also wish to pick it up.

[Frank · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hatte vorher nie darüber nachgedacht, welche Problematik (nicht vorhandener) "kanadischer Identität" innewohnt. Das war schon spannend zu lesen. Für den Text eingenommen hat mich auch, dass es die Autorin abgelehnt hat, den historischen Sprachgebrauch "Indianer" nachträglich anzupassen.
Davon ab ist der Text an vielen Stellen nicht uninteressant, aber dennoch kommt beim Nicht- Spezialisten wenig Lesefreude auf, weil mir die genannten und besprochenen Autor/innen bis auf J.F. Cooper, Alice Munroe und eben M. Atwood selbst vollkommen unbekannt sind. Was soll man also dazu sagen bzw. davon mitnehmen? Gelernt habe ich, dass die kanadische Todesart "der Tod aus Versehen" (194) ist. Mehr oder weniger überlebt man also in diesem Land ohne Geschichte oder Mythos. Meint: "Junge trifft Mädchen in Winnipeg- wen interessiert's?" (212)
Witzig fand ich die sich aus dem Literaturvergleich ergebende "Typologie": Während in Europa das typische Initiationsthema Sex sei, sei es in der US- amerikanischen Literatur das Töten und in der kanadischen die Frage: "Was passiert im Sarg?" (264) Das wird erläutert am Beispiel des Jungen und seines Mädchens in Winnipeg, die sich natürlich - wie überall - erst einmal kennenlernen müssen: "Wenn man bis hierhin gekommen ist, kann man voraussagen, dass das Mädchen nach dem ersten Treffen Krebs bekommt und der Junge von einem Meteoriten erschlagen wird..." (279) Kurz: Wenn ein anderes Leitmotiv der amerikanischen Literatur wesentlich das Geld sei, sei das der kanadischen Literatur einfach das des Überlebens, weshalb der Band, der eben nichts als Reflexionen zu der in den 70er Jahren auch in Kanada völlig unterbelichteten "kanadischen Literatur" (CanLit) enthält, genau diesen Titel trägt: Survival.
Das habe ich nun gelernt, aber ob's stimmt, kann ich nicht sagen, da die meisten der hier genannten Titel auch in Kanada nicht lieferbar sein sollen. Was Cooper anbelangt, so mag es irgendwie stimmen, obwohl bei ihm das (Über)Leben in der Natur eher positiv gesehen wird. Auf den "Report der Magd" mag es auch irgendwie zutreffen und bei Munroe - die ich nicht besonders mag - gibt es zumindest Anklänge daran. Soll man es also glauben?
Insofern mich der Band, der sicher nie für ein deutschsprachiges Publikum gedacht war, in diesen Fragen ratlos zurück lässt, kann ich ihm kaum eine Super- Bewertung geben und ob ich die Lektüre empfehlen kann- da bin ich auch unsicher. Literaturfreaks werden - siehe oben - immer mal wieder was finden, was nicht uninteressant ist. Aber wirkliche Einsichten wollen sich nicht einstellen, einfach, weil der Gegenstand den meisten Leser/innen wie mir zu unvertraut sein dürfte. Aber ein schlechtes Buch ist es deswegen keinesfalls.

[ana inés · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would read anything Margaret Atwood writes as a general rule, and this was no exception. Though I think a lot has changed since this book was written in terms of Canadian identity and Canadian literature, it stands the test of time as a sign of what things looked like decades ago, and it's a good starting point if one's interested in getting a better understanding of how these things have evolved. It is very poetry-centric, and it is definitely not a cheerful read, but it was certainly a captivating one.

[Myra Breckinridge · Rating 3 out of 5]

What I suspect was the case then, and considering the Goodreads reviews is definitely the case now, is that Atwood's guide to CanLit is viewed as a mostly comprehensive look at Canadian literature up to 1972. It is not, and in fact, leaves out numerous novels that would actually address the questions she asks in the book.

Sure, she notes that her lists of reads at the end of each chapter are far from comprehensive, but there's no real consideration of whether this lack of comprehensiveness would change at least some of her arguments and challenges. As she admits (some in new prefaces added in current editions), she mostly studied poetry and was not a student of Canadian literature before spending a year teaching a course at York that included it. Then came Survival.

It's is more one woman's idiosyncratic look at Canadian literature as she dips her toe deeper into the pool, but is still heavily weighted by her world. Her long-time partner is often referenced, as is her friend and publisher. Female authors only get to dominate the narrative in the section about female characters, and most other references to women would be fleeting if not for Margaret Laurence. She glosses over (Mazo de la Roche) or fails to discuss authors who were internationally famous while lamenting that no Canadian author gets international recognition. She wonders where middle-age women and muses are, clearly not being familiar with Psyche or The Torontonians. Humour is glossed over for its lack of survivalism. She wonders if most Canadian writers are one-hit wonders too disinterested in the woes of publishing to ever write more than one.

Ultimately, she gets a lot right, but knowing even some of the authors she fails to mention that would answer her questions, fill in her blanks, or offer counterpoints, makes Survival read like a freshman academic paper before the countless discoveries that create expertise.

[T.R. Ormond · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is great to read Atwood's Survival alongside Northrop Frye's Bush Garden. The two books were published around the same time and complement each other nicely.

Both authors discuss the role of nature in forming the Canadian intellectual imagination. They both demonstrate the same point: In Canada, nature has traditionally been regarded as something, if not hostile, then at least dangerously indifferent. For Frye, this results in the "garrison mentality" where human values are bolstered and protected in order to provide a sanctuary against nature. (These human values are not always good or desirable). In other words, Frye takes the position of social values and how literature and art is used as an imaginative tool to uphold them. Atwood takes a more psychological approach. Authors resort to various "victimization projections" in order to justify failure in the face of an inimical and all-powerful nature. As her title suggests, Canadian literature is about survival.

I found Atwood's survey of Canadian Literature to be more comprehensive than Frye's and while she does not delve quite as deeply into the significance of certain points, she probably makes a good deal more of them. This makes sense. Her intention with this book is not to write an academic introduction to Canadian Literature, but to write a more general introduction that would be more meaningful to a broader audience and encourage them to read more Canadian novels.

She succeeds.

Thanks, Peggy, now my reading list just got a lot longer.

[Tessa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fucking fantastic. This is fucking fantastic and you should read it, or at least the first chapter and the preface (which is important context for what is definitely a bit of an outdated book). The goal is to find what is Canadian about Canadian literature and why we should be bothered, and it is awesome. There are mostly interesting comparisons between Canadian, American, and UK lit but I think anyone interested in the literature of a victimized community/one with a "colonial state of mind" would like this. Unrelatedly, I have a new theory about not using the Oxford comma - maybe it's like a stick it to the man thing bc fuck the English, u won't colonize our grammar too. Anyways reading litcrit whilst tipsy is my new quarantine hobby this is a serious review and u should take it seriously ok that's all bye

[Alexa · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was much more fun than I expected! This is no dry overview, but rather essays on what constitutes national character and a personal account of reactions to literature. I really didn’t think I had any interest in literary analysis, especially (sorry!) analysis of Canadian literature, but she convinced me it can indeed be of interest. This review of Canadian literature, and the themes that Margaret Atwood has found in it, offers a powerful insight into how Atwood sees her own role as a writer.

[kate]

aka canlit is depressing and insecure and if you finish this book, you can take a long break from it to enjoy bodice ripping, serial killer american paperback novels of sex, murder and intrigue that do not benefit society whatsoever.

aka winter in canada is generally very, very long, contains a great deal of snow and has, thusly, penetrated the psyche of its writers until it owns a piece of their very souls. chilling their metaphors to ice.

[Sarah]

Never could stand Atwood's fiction. Turns out I can't abide her non-fiction, either. Oh well. It's a classic of Canadian literary studies, just not for me.

[Madison · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5. Atwood raised some interesting points, but this was very much a product of its time and I'd be interested in reading the same examination of more contemporary work.

[Zuzana · Rating 4 out of 5]

I demand a contemporary sequel!

[Anna]

the research paper that i wrote with the help of this book is probably one of my favorite essays i've ever written

[Winterkidj]

Good overview. Not quite aware of who the victims of colonization in Canada are, though. That was frustrating to read.

[Matthew Frye-Castillo · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved the breadth and depth of this work by a 32-year-old English professor. Survival (1972) helped me learn a lot about Canadian literature with an entertaining but challenging voice that is preternaturally gifted, candid, and generally (to quote Michelle Yeoh) remarkable. Atwood wrote this overview because her classroom needed a guide to Canadian literature and none (at the time) existed. While it still holds up as a teaching tool, Survival has also become a model for how other nations can think of their own literature that continues to shape them. As she writes in the introduction, “Literature is not only a mirror; it is also a map, a geography of the mind.”

It is interesting to read the original without any 21st century updates. “He” is the default pronoun, and while Atwood admits her less than expert reading of Québecois literature, the absence of Indigenous stories is hard to swallow. She does have a chapter called “First People: Indians and Eskimos as Symbols,” which focuses on how White settlers projected their fantasies on Native people, a dynamic that is really developed in Toni Morrison’s Playing in the Dark. I appreciated Atwood’s insight on the difference between settler fantasies in the States and Canada.

All in all, there’s a clarity and honest here that makes these essays timeless. I’m looking forward to a second read.

[Miss Bookiverse · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ein Sachbuch aus den Siebzigern, in dem Margaret Atwood die Leitmotive der kanadischen Literatur aufschlüsselt. Das ist interessant, weil es bis zu jenem Zeitpunkt noch gar kein Verständnis für "CanLit" gab, sie existierte im Diskurs quasi gar nicht. Es ist also echt eine krasse Sache, die Atwood damals mehr oder weniger zufällig geleistet und innerhalb weniger Monate runtergeschrieben hat und ich war sehr froh über die Einbindung der Vorworte von 2003 und 2013 in meiner Ausgabe, die diese literaturhistorische Leistung verortet haben.

Das Buch ist gleichzeitig leicht zugänglich (manchmal sogar recht witzig) und mit akademischem Anspruch. Allerdings ist es wohl vor allem für Personen interessant, die die erwähnten kanadischen Werke kennen. Dazu zähle ich nicht und viele Passagen sind deshalb an mir vorbeigerauscht. Sie haben mich nicht mal dazu animiert, die Werke jetzt lesen zu wollen, vermutlich weil die Quintessenz kanadischer Literatur "deprimierend" ist. Ich fand es aber trotzdem interessant, wenn allgemeiner über die Besonderheiten kanadischer Literatur, vor allem auch im Vergleich mit US-amerikanischer und britischer, erzählt wird.

[Rita · Rating 5 out of 5]

What an incredibly interesting, well-written and comprehensive guide to Canadian Literature! It's the best possible introduction to the subject; Atwood knows what she's talking about, and using her dark humor, wit and vast knowledge of Canadian literature she wrote this very useful guide.

In Survival, Atwood argues that the central theme of Canadian literature is "survival" - the struggle to endure harsh environments, both natural and social, which shapes a distinct national identity. She presents the four "victim positions": 1. Denial of being a victim, 2. Acceptance of victimhood as a matter of fate, 3. Repudiation of the victim role, and 4. Creative Non-Victimhood. Atwood highlights the recurring figure of the “victim-heroine,” who navigates adversity and may emerge resilient or remain trapped in vulnerability.

By connecting literature to Canada’s geography and history, Atwood distinguishes Canadian writing from other traditions, establishing a cultural conscience and offering a “geography of the mind” that maps the nation’s literary and psychological landscape. Though some aspects of Survival are now dated, it remains a fundamental work in understanding Canadian literature and identity.

Would highly recommend for those interested in broadening their knowledge of Canadian literature, culture and history.

[Ixby Wuff · Rating 4 out of 5]

When first published in 1972, Survival was considered the most startling book ever written about Canadian literature. Since then, it has continued to be read and taught, and it continues to shape the way Canadians look at themselves. Distinguished, provocative, and written in effervescent, compulsively readable prose, Survival is simultaneously a book of criticism, a manifesto, and a collection of personal and subversive remarks. Margaret Atwood begins by asking: “What have been the central preoccupations of our poetry and fiction?” Her answer is “survival and victims.”

Atwood applies this thesis in twelve brilliant, witty, and impassioned chapters; from Moodie to MacLennan to Blais, from Pratt to Purdy to Gibson, she lights up familiar books in wholly new perspectives.

[Robert Day · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm so glad to be finishing this book because I fell asleep whilst reading it more often than any other. On the bright side, I now know what keeps me awake while reading (grapes) and so thanks M. Atwood for bestowing this gift on me.

I now know more about the nature of Canadian writing and writers than I did before. I also stongly suspect that I know more M. Atwood than I did before. It's all good.

Canadian literature (and writers) seem a bit down at the moment. If you meet any, please give them a hug from me.

Read this if you have to. It's good but it's also a tad boring if you're not keen on reading about someone's opinions on Canadianness.

[Shishir · Rating 3 out of 5]

An examination of Canadian Literature - compared and contrasted with English and American literature. Numerous examples and authors examined. Well written but the book was too academic for my liking. Themes covered included, survival in tough nature, against animals, First nations and other forces. The views were of course biased by the diverse points of view of the white settlers.