Ibis3’s Comments (group member since Sep 06, 2010)

Ibis3’s comments from the CanLit Challenge group.

Kirsten wrote: "That sounds chilly. It's been freezing here lately.

I'm stoked for this trip. Just got my snowboard waxed and dug out my Oilers jersey, so I'm ready!"

The furnace itself was only out for a day so it wasn't too bad. We had to pull out a couple of walls in the basement though, so that was a bit of a PIA.

Do you know whom they will be playing?

I'm reading The Imperialist now as my main book. Duncan writes a bit like or Elizabeth Gaskell or George Eliot.

Sorry I haven't been around so much for the past couple of weeks. We had to replace the furnace in our house without warning and it's been pretty hectic. I'm just now putting my library back in some semblance of order (ha!).

Sounds like an awesome trip, Kirsten. You'll have to let me know how it goes.

Okay, another brilliant offering by Robertson Davies. I enjoyed the humour in this one especially. Davies shows us his characters in all their flawed humanity but loves them anyway. It's hard not to look for precursors of his later masterpieces and they're there to find for sure. From what I understand, the third book of the trilogy departs for Europe, but I'd have loved another trilogy visiting with our friends in Salterton.

Personally, I don't think our news broadcasters are in the habit of lying or misleading the public. There may be pundits or politicians who go on and when asked questions, lie. But generally, representatives from all parties and positions get relatively equal air time and the journalists themselves try to remain neutral. The "bent" of a paper or tv broadcaster usually comes through mainly in clearly labelled opinion pieces.

Arguments about enforcability are generally a kind of a copout or red herring when debating regulation or legislation--no law or regulation can be enforced 100% of the time but that's no reason to get rid of the justice system. We legislate according to our ideals as a society and do our best to make sure those laws and regulations are enforced within reasonable limits and with prudently deployed resources.

Libel laws are not enough. Who was libelled when FOX claimed that Obama's health care plan included death panels? No one. But look at the harm that kind of reporting does. The populace made their decisions about health care legislation based on lies. In politics, we should be debating based on facts as much as possible. If the majority of people would really prefer to have a private health care system because they'd rather be able to have the opportunity to have more resources if they can individually pay for it, fine. That's what democracy is about. But don't let "news" broadcasters mislead people.

As you point out, people have less and less time to become informed. All the more reason to make sure their information is relatively valid, no matter what station they're watching or what broadcaster's website they're surfing. We have truth in advertising regulations. We don't expect people to be experts and know when a company is lying about their products. Why should we expect them to be experts about what's going on in the world or in government? That's what the fourth estate is for.

So, if you think the news media has too much power as it is, ask how much more would they have if that regulation gets changed?

Glen wrote: "I don't see where your reference is very objective. It looks like a Harper bashing statement. I don't see the actual changes recommnended.

You cannot put in rules and regulations that cannot be ..."

The current regulation reads

3. A licensee shall not broadcast
...
(d) any false or misleading news;
[(e) is about taped conversations]

They want to change this to

(d) any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public;

This would make it okay for broadcasters to lie in every case as long as no one's life or safety is proven to be at risk. To hell with a properly informed electorate. Also, in order to make a complaint, one would have to have evidence that the broadcaster knew it was giving false and misleading information. The broadcaster is thereby absolved of responsibility for ensuring they're telling the truth even when lives are at stake. They are allowed to lie, as long as no one can prove they knew they were lying.

Have you heard of this? There are proposed changes to Canada's broadcast standards that would destroy public protections against false news coverage.

I don't think that would serve the public interest, no matter what side of the political spectrum one gravitates toward. (Actually, I think there's more than enough spin lying from politicians and pundits as it is).

There's a petition here if you feel similarly inclined: http://www.avaaz.org/en/canada_fair_a...

I'm now about 3/4 through and I'm loving it so far. It's very funny and I'm very curious to find out who put in the false notice and why.

Well, what do you all think of the winning book? Good choice or yet another CR failure?

Oh, and this year, I haven't actually read any of the contenders, so I don't even have my personal opinion to go on. Unless will likely end up as a CanLit Challenge book (with its 2002 publication date, it's running into borderline territory though).

Honestly, I'm not the best person to ask. I used to be a big fan of CR, but I was disappointed with it the year that King Leary won over Not Wanted On The Voyage. I liked both books, but if you're looking for a book that every Canadian ought to read, it should be a masterpiece. Then the following year The Book Of Negroes won, despite the fact that the panel spent much of the week talking about its faults. It won due to "strategic voting". The panellists decided that the aim was not to select the most appropriate book, but that the aim was for their book to win. Gone are the days when a panellist would vote for a book they didn't start out defending (as Justin Trudeau did when he voted for Next Episode). I've skipped it since then.

Any thoughts on today's discussion and elimination?

I'd like to recommend the first year textbooks from back when I was in Uni (of course there are now updated editions and I'm sure they're just as good).

Origins: Canadian History to Confederation

and

Destinies: Canadian History Since Confederation

I've since parted with my original copies, but now I'm thinking of getting some replacements....

The Preacher that Wandered / current U.S. gov’t

I was reading this section:

‘That’s a bright scheme, but it won’t do: we shall want the Province some day, and I guess we’ll buy it off King William; they say he is over head and ears in debt, and owes nine hundred millions of pounds starling—we’ll buy it, as we did Florida. In the meantime we must have a canal from Bay Fundy to Bay Varte, right through Cumberland Neck by Shittyack, for our fishing vessels to go to Labradore.”I guess you must ax leave first,’ said I. ‘That’s jist what I was ciphering at,’ says he, ‘when you came in. I believe we won’t ax them at all, but jist fall to and do it; it’s a road of needcessity. I once heard Chief Justice Marshall of Baltimore, say “If the people’s highway is dangerous, a man may take down a fence and pass through the fields as a way of needcessity”; and we shall do it on that principle, as the way round by Isle Sable is dangerous.

and I couldn’t help but think about the current U.S. statements about the Northwest Passage* being an international shipping lane despite the fact that it goes through our internal waters.

By the way, I checked and there never was a canal built from the Bay of Fundy to Baie Verte at Shediac, N.B. nor on the N.S. side at Amherst, though there were proposals to do so as late as the 1950s.

*The article was current at the time I read this book in 2007, and the US position hasn't changed.

--
Sam Slick predicts the American Civil War – 30 years beforehand

The Blacks and the Whites in the States show their teeth and snarl; they are jist ready to fall to[ ...] The Abolitionists and Planters are at it like two bulls in a pastur’. [...] General Government and State Government every now and then square off and spar, and the first blow given will bring a genuine set-to. [...] You have heerd tell of cotton rags dipped in turpentine, haven’t you, how they produce combustion among us in abundance; when it does break out, if you don’t see an eruption of human gore worse than Etna lava, then I’m mistaken.- XXI Cumberland Oysters

—
This was a fun read. Interesting to see how early our respective national characters were developed, just 50 short years following the American Revolution and 30 years yet before Confederation. It’s also interesting to see how settled and civilised Nova Scotia was while at the same time Ontario was still a wild forest.

Now Stephen Leacock is often considered the father of Canadian satire and humour, but before him was Thomas Chandler Haliburton. The sketches of The Clockmaker first appeared in the Novascotian newspaper and published as a set in 1836. Several more volumes were to follow.

This is from the Dictionary of Canadian Biography:

Haliburton’s international and enduring reputation as a writer, however, is based on The Clockmaker...For a time at least in the mid-19th century, Haliburton and his work had a vogue on both sides of the Atlantic which rivalled that enjoyed by Charles Dickens.

The Clockmaker can be regarded as a series of moral essays pointed by satire or as a picaresque novel whose plot is more episodic than that of most. The Squire, narrator and persona of the author, and Sam Slick, a Yankee clockmaker, travel through contemporary Nova Scotia. On their wanderings somehow or other every incident they encounter becomes an apt illustration of a political or social trait which can often be summed up by a maxim. Interest throughout the book, therefore, is not dependent on suspense but rather on the inherent liveliness of each incident, the appropriateness of the meaning which it illustrates, and the author’s brilliant use of characterization, language, anecdote, and point of view.

Glen wrote: "I'm not sure what approach to take when starting a new thread. Author,Subject, Biography or specific book. I guess we will wait and see what others start. "

Any of the above. The only request I have (apart from the obvious) is that if you want to talk about a specific book, check to see if it's a Challenge book first. I'm still working on getting up threads for previous picks, but a full list of those can be found here: http://www.readerofthestack.com/canli...
A list including upcoming Challenge books listed by title alphabetically is here: http://www.readerofthestack.com/cl_title

If there is a classic that's not on the (second) list and you think it should be, drop me a note or post about it here in the P&P thread. The basis of the Challenge list was the New Canadian Library imprint from M&S and there are significant omissions which I've always intended to correct, so it's likely that if there's a CanLit classic missing I'll be happy to add it.

This is the second book in Robertson Davies' first trilogy. I've downloaded it as an audiobook but my iPod got soaked so I can't listen to it! Hopefully it will recover in the next couple of days because I'm looking forward to visiting Salterton again.

Sounds interesting. A close friend of mine had a brother who was mentally ill and unfortunately he wasn't able to survive despite attempts at treatment. I'm sure that the insights you're able to provide looking at the problem from inside, as it were, would be quite helpful.

Literary Lapses is coming up as a Challenge book in the spring. I hope you'll pick that one up when we do it.

In a reply to a post by Cheryl, Glen wrote:

"I lost two direct messages to you. I need to know what you're interested in to know if those three books would be for you. I think Mrs. King is interesting but would not be a good choice to start as you do not know her famous father and son. Both were quite eccentric and yet successful men. The other two books stand alone much better and I think either would be interesting to people outside of Canada. I have heard Americans think highly of McClung. Intelligent, lots of courage, writer, politically astute. To some extent it explains how the women's rights movement even today was influenced by her. She wanted to fight from inside the government as well as the outside. Her approach, although all did not agree, I think gave women a bigger say earlier than if she had gone in a different direction. We could use more like her although Stephen Leacock would not agree. She managed to have a family life as well. Talk about a person with stamina. "