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"
