Margarets Malahat
The entire January issue in 1977 of The Malahat Review (Number
41) was dedicated to Margaret Atwood. Ones first impulse was to check the obituary
columns, since on first glance the volume, complete with photos and I remember Peggy
when . . . stories, smacked of a tribute to a deceased great. Not so. Ones
second response was to ask if Atwood had retired. Wrong again. Was this then a kind of Festschrift?
Editor Linda Sandler calls it a Symposium but it really is, in her own
words, in the nature of a tenth anniversary tribute, an acknowledgement of
Atwoods ten years as the presiding genius of Canadian letters, and as
such it turns out to be a rather interesting mixture both of criticism and
adulation and of the personal and the academic.
The volume opens with Sandlers interview
of Atwood, one in which the author contributes amusingly to the (self-)debunking of the
presiding genius status now accorded her. Other contributions by Atwood
herself include a poem, Threes, and a short story, The Resplendant
Quetzal, plus a set of worksheets for those readers interested in the stages of a
poems genesis. There is also a photo album dating from 1944 to 1976, with Atwood
looking everything from delightfully spontaneous to stagily posed; in other words, the
usual photo collection range.
The personal parts of the volume
are divided into prose and poetic contributions. There are poems explicitly written for or
to Atwood by George Woodcock, Tom Marshall, and Gwendolyn MacEwen. The most interesting of
these is one by editor Sandler herself to which we shall later return. Other poems
such as Susan Musgraves are obviously inspired by Atwoods own themes and
images; George Jonas too has pastiche fun with Atwoods titles. Other
poetic contributions are harder to account for. Ralph Gustafson, Janis Rapoport, and Al
Purdy include poems which presumably are inspired by or related to Atwood and/or her work,
but the relationship remains somewhat less than clear. The same is true of Robin
Skeltons photographic collages entitled Anima: A Pictographic Sextain for
Margaret Atwood.
The two brief personal prose
sections are of more general interest in that they both address themselves to
Atwoods media persona. Al Purdys amusingly witty and genuinely affectionate
tale of his first meeting with Atwood is overtly aimed at countering Glasscos
professional virgin image of her. On the other hand, perhaps predictably,
Robert Fulford defends the medias different images of Atwood
(Feminist, nationalist, literary witch, mythological poet, satirist, formulator of
critical theories) on the grounds that as a writer and as a public persona, Atwood
is elusive but also her own public self-creation. As such, she is
fair game; her Protean presence is good press, Fulford seems to suggest.
The academic or literary critical part of the
issue is less entertaining than the personal and is also considerably more uneven in
quality. There are specific articles on particular books, but there are also more general
thematic and image-tracing studies. Of this latter type, perhaps the most stimulating is
Rosemary Sullivans Breaking the Circle, in which a selection of
Atwoods texts is employed to illustrate the circle game image as a
central Atwood motif, linked on a cultural level to Fryes garrison mentality theme
in Canadian literature. For Sullivan, the enclosing circle is that of logic and of
language: One problem is that Atwoods language fails her. Even in moments of
intense mystical perception, her language is the language of logic. True, but one
might argue from the same evidence that Atwood is very aware of this inevitable paradox,
and that her interest is in exploring exactly that game within that impossible
perfect circle. Sullivans somewhat mystical and personal conclusion is
that Atwood fails to break out of the circle, fails to face anarchy and possible rebirth,
fails to achieve a true understanding of persons in relation.
While one might not agree with this
interpretation, one is grateful for the coherence and thoroughness of the critics
work. This is all the more true in the light of some of the other general literary
studies. The introduction of Tom Marshalls Atwood Under and Above Water
would lead one to expect a full discussion of the long list of themes and images that lead
Marshall to claim that Atwood works consciously within the Canadian tradition
whatever that means. However, the brief and superficial survey which follows is
more descriptive than analytic, and ultimately offers no new or even interesting insights.
Similar structural problems belie Eli Mandels Atwood Gothic which begins
as a study of what lies beneath the surface of her social commentary. The three
elements he claims to choose to discuss are a preoccupation with the ghost story on
an allegorical level , an obsession with reduplicating images, and the use of
totemic animal images. The first of these is quite fully treated; the third is never
really got around to because the second takes Mandel off on a tangent which, while quite
frankly of more interest than his gothic subject, is not really what the reader had been
led to expect. The article ends on a very different topic from that on which it
began the gothic use of mirror images is exchanged for what he now calls his
argument, that is, that this concern of hers is an attempt to resolve an
impossible dilemma about writing and experience, or about fiction and wisdom.
There are logical and structural problems too
with the single article devoted specifically to Atwoods poetic style. In
Timeless Construction, Robin Skelton advances the theory that Atwoods
style is modular, that its units are therefore moveable. This at first is intriguing in
that one tends to agree with him that her verse indeed is about states of being
rather than events, that it is not primarily concerned with sequence of
action, but when Skelton then adds, or with sequence of thought,
one begins to hesitate. The logic the critic follows leads him to state that if this
is a true description of her verse, then the parts can be rearranged and in fact he has
found that only in a minority of poems is the sentence or stanza order absolutely
unalterable. Since, given his definition of modular, he must deny that rhetoric is
important to Atwoods verse, he can proceed to take liberties with the order within
poems; but, in his arbitrary reorganizing he could be said to defeat his own purpose.
Admitting that style is the message, he fails to see that
a definition of modular verse alone cannot prevent rhetorical emphasis from being
inseparable from style, and therefore from the message, that form and style are not just
made of words or units, but the placing of those words. (He does admit in one case that
indeed the reordering of modules would give us an anticlimatic
conclusion but that this would not fundamentally affect the poems
message.) His least effective example of a poem whose parts could easily
be rearranged with no damage is one which proves that his concept of units or
modules has blinded him to impactrhetorical and in fact emotionalin
the poem as a whole:
You fit into me
like a hook into an eye
a fish hook
an open eye.
Any reversal would destroy the force and the poetic, if not
literal, meaning of the poem. The logic of Skeltons argument is not assisted
at all by his sudden recourse to types of parallelism in Hebrew prosody, since they are
all based on order of units (e.g. the second half [of the verse]
gives a consequence of the first thought, etc.). Ultimately one is left
unconvinced by his reordable modular theory.
The two articles on Atwoods fiction are
of more value. Novelist Jane Rules Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Normalcy is mostly plot outline but is made well worth reading by her insights into
the characters relationships to language and to fiction. Rowland Smiths view
of Atwood as The Stoic Comedian is an intriguing mixture of negative criticism
and praise: Because the major themes [of the novels] are so eminently
comprehensible, so easily seized upon as the substance of the books, they tend to obscure
the sardonic comedy which is superbly built into their texture. In other words, the
overt unsubtle lessons of her fiction are obtrusive in their oversonorous,
heavy-handed underlining, while the sardonic asides of what he calls the
derailed observer are much more incisive and revealing, not just in social
satiric terms, but on a more profound psychological level.
It is Survival, however, that draws
the greatest number of responses, though not necessarily the most interesting. George
Woodcocks Transformation Mask for Margaret Atwood begins with his
objections to Atwood as a critic, and en route to a discussion of the theme of animal
victimization, he launches into an attack on the victim status as a basis to any notion of
survival. He does so on the paradoxical grounds that it is at once too universal (see the
Bible, Homer, and so on) and too personal. Yet in this latter weakness of the book, lies
Atwoods strength as a writer for Woodcock: in writing Survival, Margaret
Atwood has really been externalizing intuitions whose validity is mainly subjective;
feelings which find a convincing creative form in her two novels and in her poetry, but
which lose their strength as soon as she attempts to use them for the interpretation of a
mass of work by other writers.
Survival also excites a range of
kinds of responses typical of this volume as a whole. One need only mention for contrast
value George Bowerings Basic Victim Positions, a mercifully brief sexual
parody on the perhaps unhappy position phrase. Another view is taken by Rick
Salutin who sees Survival as a sort of prolegomenon to a Marxist criticism
of Canadian literature because its basis is essentially economic and political, and
its intent is practical. He then goes on to claim that indeed without a Marxist
base, the structure and intent of the book would fall apart. Whether or not
one agrees that the book is a moment in the dialectic of Canadian
society, the concept at least has a textual basis, a claim John Hofsess cannot make
for his How To Be Your Own Best Survival, a self indulgent and not very
amusing response to the book he read it and began exercising. He claims that
it takes a certain imaginative flair to misread . . . [Survival] so profoundly
that it changes ones life, for good, but one is tempted to claim instead that
it takes a certain chutzpah to think this would interest anyone else.
The volume ends on a rather different note
the academic and impersonal one of Alan J. Hornes checklist of works by and
about Atwood. But to be fair to the tonal range of the issue, one ought to note
Jerome H. Rosenbergs rather cloying enthusiasm in the drily-titled, On Reading
the Atwood Papers in the Thomas Fisher Library: What makes the [reading]
experience acute is the dramatic, gothically suspenseful presentation of the
correspondence. It is filed alphabetically in separate folders, each under a different
correspondents name, and it reads very much like a Faulkerian novel say Absalom,
Absalom! or As I Lay Dying. What emerges is a non-linear, labyrinthical
tale. The parts of any given event are separated by several or several dozen folders; one
revisits them from different viewpoints and reassesses them, like clues in a
mystery. The reader awaits irony but only gets: Theres nothing unusual
here only a standard filing system; and a few hours work could put the material
into chronological order. But to look at it that way is rather pedestrian and requires
that we put aside the excitement of discovery. And so on.
Malahats tribute to Atwood is
indeed a mixed bag. Editor Sandler has provided something for everyone from general
reader to Can.Lit. expert, from literary groupie to bibliographer. In this sense the
volume is successful. One might have looked for a little more editing of the overly
idiosyncratic and personal, but what is clear is that Atwood, unlike Wordsworths
Lucy, will never be a maid whom there were none to praise. One wonders how it
felt, at 38, to be the recipient of such a tribute. Linda Sandlers fine poem,
Collage for Lady Oracle, ends with what is, one would like to think, a
possible answer:
We wanted you to tell us the future, that was your job.
You shrugged.
We could see you were going to oblige
when you reached for the axe.
Linda Hutcheon |