By Katherine Morrison (Toronto: Second Story Press, 2003). Review by Ron Dart.
The ongoing and ever ripe debate about the meaning and
significance of the Canadian identity, often and inevitably so, turns to the
discussion and dialogue about Canadians and Americans. Many Canadians walk the
extra mile to make sure they are not Americans, and do not want to be seen as
such. Often, Canadians are quick and eager to define themselves as, in a
negative way, not being Americans. When asked, in a positive sense, what it
does mean to be Canadian, a sort of confusion and stumbling about occurs.
If, as Canadians, we are not Americans, what does this mean
in a positive and more constructive sense? What does it mean, in short, to say
we are Canadians?
Some of the concerns and questions mentioned above are the
focus of a recent book by Katherine L. Morrison. Canadians are not Americans: Myths and Literary Traditions (2003)
walks the curious reader into some distinct and distinguished differences
between the Canadian psyche and soul and the American soul and psyche. Morrison
smokes out a variety of important themes and motifs in both the Canadian and
American imagination, and, in doing so, clarifies for both Americans and Canadians
some essential differences at a core level between two traditions that inhabit
the North American continent. The careful distinctions Morrison has made do
much to advance a healthy dialogue between the Canadian and American
traditions.
Katherine Morrison grew up as an American, but, in time, she
moved to Canada. She mentions, in Canadians
are not Americans, how, initially, she noticed a variety of small issues
that highlighted for her that she was not in the USA any longer. Such small and
secondary issues soon took her to deeper and more substantive questions about
the differences between the Canadian and American identities. Since Morrison’s
main interest was literature, it was just a matter of time before she began to
examine and explore, through the genre of Canadian and American literature, the
different attitudes towards a variety of issues. The more Morrison probed and
read, the more she realized and saw that the Canadian literary tradition
reflected a different worldview and outlook on life than the American literary
tradition. It would, of course, be both foolish and pure folly, to assume these
two traditions have nothing in common. Morrison does not want to head down that
path. But, the other error, of course, is to assume there are no differences. Canadians are not Americans, chapter by
chapter, clarifies the areas of substantive and essential differences.
Canadians are not
Americans, as a work of serious literary reflection, takes us a long and
healthy stride beyond Margaret Atwood’s, Survival:
A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature (1972). Atwood, a keen and faithful
student of Northrop Frye, was ever in search for the dominating myth that
defined either a person or a people. Frye and Atwood have played a serious and
significant role, both in literature and literary criticism, in viewing life
and literature, through certain myths and dominating archetypes. It is these
myths, when rightly heard and understood, that tell us much about ourselves and
our response to the world in which we live. Survival
catapulted Atwood onto the front stage of Canadian literary life, and, as
such, she spoke with much authority. Atwood, in Survival, argued that the main and major myth that has defined and
shaped the Canadian literary tale and drama is the desire to survive. This is
our dominant and deciding, our defining and declaratory myth. Needless to say,
when Survival was published, there
were many knockers and boosters. The book went on to become a literary Magna
Charta and Bible to many. Canadians are
not Americans, gratefully so, broadens and thickens the discussion about
the meaning of the Canadian identity. If Atwood is lean and reductionistic,
Morrison is profuse and lavish. Both Atwood and Morrison turn to myth as the
key to opening the door into the Canadian heart, head and soul, but Morrison,
unlike Atwood, has many keys to many different rooms, and, as such, she takes
us into the mansion and cathedral of the Canadian tradition in a way that
Atwood can and does not. But, both Atwood and Morrison do bow low to Northrop
Frye’s mythic line and lineage. Morrison is just broader and fuller in the
myths she draws in to distinguish the Canadian from the American way.
Canadians are not
Americans: Myths and Literary Traditions unpacks the many mythic layers
within the Canadian ethos and identity, and it draws from the reserves of the
Canadian and American literary bank. There are many ways into the
Canadian-American debate about identity, and literature is as good a way into
such a discussion as any. Morrison divides Canadians
are not Americans into nine distinct chapters, and each chapter unpacks and
unravels important myths that distinguish and differentiate the Canadian from
the American tradition. The strength of the book is the way it refuses to
reduce or restrict the Canadian or American myths to a simple and irreducible
archetype that dominates and defines the way of a people. The chapters tells
their own tale: 1) The Launching of National Myths, 2) A Sense of the Past, 3)
Nature, 4) A Sense of Place, 5) Religion and the Church, 6) Gender, Ethnicity,
and Class, 7)Violence, 8) Humour and 9) The Tenacity of National Myths. There
is no doubt in Canadians are not
Americans that Morrison is holding up a sort of literary mirror to both
traditions, and, by doing so, helping each to see their face a little better
and a little clearer.
It is somewhat surprising, given the title of the book, that
Morrison does not have a chapter on both Canadian perceptions of the USA, and
American perceptions of Canada. There is much in the literary tradition of both
countries that could have been mined. Much of early Canadian literature abounds
and is thick with references to how and why Canadians are Canadians, and why we
do not want to be Americans. Canadians
are not Americans would have been a stronger and more convincing book if it
had hiked down such a trail and path. Morrison tends to avoid some of these
more demanding approaches, and this is a weakness and failing of the book. At
least, to Morrison’s credit, she has moved the discussion a healthy and hearty
distance beyond Atwood’s Survival.
Is it possible, when attempting in a literary way, to go
further than Morrison and the mythic approach to interpreting both literature
and the identity of a people? This is not to deny that myth is not important,
but is there more to interpretation than reducing all to myth and archetypes?
What books might be read that could, in a deeper and sharper way, further
clarify why and how Canadians are not Americans? Morrison has dipped her bucket
in some deep and life giving waters, but are there yet other wells she has not
gone to?
Canadians are not Americans
is a fine trek across the literary landscape of two nations. Much is seen,
but much is not seen. I think, by way of conclusion, a fine companion piece and
corrective to Canadians are not Americans
is Canadian Literature: Surrender or
Revolution (1978), by Robin Mathews. It is somewhat surprising, given the
thesis and approach of Morrison, that Mathews is not even mentioned in her
book. Mathews has been front and centre in the Canadian debate about the
Canadian way (and our differences with the USA) in the last forty years, and
most of his work has been of a literary bent. Mathews was a student at
University of Toronto in the 1950s of Northrop Frye, and he differed with the
master. Atwood was a student of Frye’s, and she bowed to the master. Mathews
would argue that there are more ways to read, write and interpret literature
than merely in a mythic way, even though this approach was trendy in the early
part of the 20th century. A literature of solid and sustained social
realism, a literature that asks the hard questions of justice and injustice,
war and peace, politics and apathy, a literature of complex motives and complex
social realities is also a way into the literary tradition of a people and
nation.
Canadian Literature:
Surrender or Revolution is both a must read and corrective to both Atwood’s
Survival and Morrison’s Canadians are not Americans. Mathews
dares to go where Atwood or Morrison fear to tread. Mathews dares to ask
questions about both Canadian identity and our relationship with the USA that
Morrison and Atwood shrink from asking. Canadian
Literature: Surrender or Revolution points out how and why Canadians are
often colonial and how and why we have tried to fight out of the colonial bag.
Good literature and literary criticism, for Mathews, does not shrink nor flinch
from facing or asking the tough political questions, and such questions, for
Canadians, often come to such basic issues as American imperialism and Canadian
colonialism and compradorism. It is somewhat frustrating that Morrison, given
the consistent voice in Canada of Mathews, has chosen to ignore and censure him
out of Canadians are not Americans.
We might want to ask why this is the case? Is Morrison, at a certain level, not
willing to deeply and truly probe how and why Canadians are not Americans? Why
does she stop and halt the journey just when the journey might be getting truly
interesting and demanding? It is in this sense that Canadian Literature is a much better book on the Canadian-American
differences than Canadians are not
Americans.
Canadians are not
Americans: Myths and Literary Traditions should be applauded for the broad
approach taken in distinguishing between the Canadian and American psyche and
way of being. It is a much more mature book than Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature. But, for those who are truly interested in
getting a feel for the texture of the Canadian way in opposition to the
American way, Mathews’ Canadian
Literature: Surrender or Revolution is a much more probing and demanding
read. It is a pity that Morrison did not take the time or exert the energy to
heed what Mathews had to say. If she had, Canadians
are not Americans would have been a stronger book, and much truer to the
Canadian way and tradition. In sum, it
is just when we want to hear why and how Canadians are not Americans, and what
the Canadian literary tradition says about such a question that Morrison goes
mute and silent, and it is this muteness that is the weakness and limitation of
this otherwise insightful book.
rsd