Canadian Science Fiction/Fantasy?
Richard Shewmaker
English or French, incidentally.
____________________
Richard G. Shewmaker
Astrophos Consulting
"The doors, darling!" cried Clara, "the doors are opening! Come, come
quickly! And don't be sad anymore ... Think of all the beautiful things
you're going to see!"
-- Octave Mirbeau, "The Torture Garden"
Anne M. Marble
> Does anyone know of any Canadian SF/F? Written originally either in
> English or French, incidentally.
Aurora Awards Site:
http://www.sentex.net/~dmullin/aurora/
Also, go to these sites for some info:
http://www.geocities.com/canadian_sf/index.html
http://www.edu.uleth.ca/~runte/NCFGuide/
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> Richard Shewmaker <ric...@astronospamtodayphos.com> wrote:
> > Does anyone know of any Canadian SF/F? Written originally either in
> > English or French, incidentally.
>
> Aurora Awards Site:
> http://www.sentex.net/~dmullin/aurora/
When checking here, make sure you access the *eligibility* lists, not
the winners list, otherwise you'll end up thinking Robert J. Sawyer is
the *only* Canadian writing science fiction.
There is also Tesseracts Q which is French can-sf-lit translated into
English- in fact, most any of the Tesseracts anthologies, except for
volume 6, is a good place to get a sampling of short Canadian sf. The
best one is volume 4.
>
> Also, go to these sites for some info:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/canadian_sf/index.html
> http://www.edu.uleth.ca/~runte/NCFGuide/
--
Programming is a race between creating
bigger and better idiot-proof programs,
and the Universe creating
bigger and better idiots.
Evelyn C. Leeper
Theresa Wojtasiewicz <tw...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> There is also Tesseracts Q which is French can-sf-lit translated into
> English- in fact, most any of the Tesseracts anthologies, except for
> volume 6, is a good place to get a sampling of short Canadian sf. The
> best one is volume 4.
ON SPEC is another Canadian SF magazine.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper, http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
diffucult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford, 1992
Keith Morrison
> > Aurora Awards Site:
> > http://www.sentex.net/~dmullin/aurora/
>
> When checking here, make sure you access the *eligibility* lists, not
> the winners list, otherwise you'll end up thinking Robert J. Sawyer is
> the *only* Canadian writing science fiction.
Which Robert J. Sawyer is quite happy to have you think. He is,
after all, "Canada's only full time science fiction writer!" At
least for some assorted definition of "Canada" or "Canadian, "only",
"full time", "science fiction" and "writer".
--
Keith
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
<teehee>
Yeah, that about sums it up. He won't be able to say that for very much
longer, though... 'course, knowing him, he'll just switch from being
"the only" to being "the first". <sigh>
educ8rs
"Richard Shewmaker" <ric...@astronospamtodayphos.com> wrote in message
news:3AD66252...@astronospamtodayphos.com...
> Does anyone know of any Canadian SF/F? Written originally either in
> English or French, incidentally.
There's quite a few good sf work going on in Canada. One such author is
Candas Jane Dorsey whose work includes "(Learning About) Machine Sex" and,
most recently, Black Wine. Also, sf critic and current London denizen John
Clute just released his first novel.
Richard Horton
<kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote:
>Which Robert J. Sawyer is quite happy to have you think. He is,
>after all, "Canada's only full time science fiction writer!" At
>least for some assorted definition of "Canada" or "Canadian, "only",
>"full time", "science fiction" and "writer".
I think he also plays with the definitions of 's and !
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)
Richard Horton
wrote:
His second novel. He published a very strange (nearly
incomprehensible to me, at any rate) novel called _The Disinheriting
Party_ in 1977.
And he's lived in London for an awfully long time, as I recall.
Michael J. Lowrey
> Does anyone know of any Canadian SF/F? Written originally either in
> English or French, incidentally.
Nalo Hopkinson, of course.
Guy G. Kay
Technically, most of the "Quebec secedes" thrillers that were a minor
Canadian fad a decade or two agone were near-future SF then, and would
be Alternative Histories nowadays, right? Like wozname, Rossner or
something?
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
Sunrise Book Reviews
sure there are others hiding in the recesses of his memory, whom he'll
remember as soon as he logs off
James Nicoll
Michael J. Lowrey <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote:
>"Richard Shewmaker" <ric...@astronospamtodayphos.com> wrote:
>> Does anyone know of any Canadian SF/F? Written originally either in
>> English or French, incidentally.
>
>Nalo Hopkinson, of course.
>
>Guy G. Kay
>
>Technically, most of the "Quebec secedes" thrillers that were a minor
>Canadian fad a decade or two agone were near-future SF then, and would
>be Alternative Histories nowadays, right? Like wozname, Rossner or
>something?
Rohmer. Including one where Canada defeats the US in a war.
--
"Somehow I managed to get a job as an apprentice structural engineering
draughtsman, where I was supposed to design buildings which people would
sit in and the roof would not fall down and kill them. A big responsibility
for someone whose total education had come from PLANET STORIES." Bob Shaw
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> "Richard Shewmaker" <ric...@astronospamtodayphos.com> wrote:
> > Does anyone know of any Canadian SF/F? Written originally either in
> > English or French, incidentally.
>
> Nalo Hopkinson, of course.
>
> Guy G. Kay
>
> Technically, most of the "Quebec secedes" thrillers that were a minor
> Canadian fad a decade or two agone were near-future SF then, and would
> be Alternative Histories nowadays, right? Like wozname, Rossner or
> something?
Oh, yes, and I forgot about the anthology ARROWDREAMS, stories of
alternate Canadas...
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> "Richard Shewmaker" <ric...@astronospamtodayphos.com> wrote:
> > Does anyone know of any Canadian SF/F? Written originally either in
> > English or French, incidentally.
>
> Nalo Hopkinson, of course.
>
> Guy G. Kay
Karl Schroeder's VENTUS is out and about. Also, if you can find it and
want something silly, THE CLAUS EFFECT, Karl Schroeder and David Nickle.
Not exactly Canadian in content (unless you admit Santa's Workshop,
being at the North Pole, is in Canada - postal code H0H 0H0). It does
have some elves with *very* bad attitudes, and the Claus is the... well,
you'd have to read it, but not to your children. Oh, definitely not to
your children. ;-)
Richard Shewmaker
Many thanks to all who posted information with regard to Candian SF/F.
Some great information here! I was surprised and delighted to find that
I've been unwittingly reading a number of authors all along. Now I'd
like to get some of the material written in French!
____________________
Richard G. Shewmaker
Astrophos Consulting
Car, n'est-ce pas l'histoire entière de ce qu'on appela un jour l'âme
qui vit et meurt dans ses paysages convulsionnaires and dans ses fleurs.
-- Antonin Artaud
Richard Shewmaker
>
> And now there's me: my funny fantasy, Fools Errant, is now out in paperback
> from Warner Aspect, with a sequel -- Fool Me Twice -- to follow in August.
> Both books have just been picked up by the Science Fiction Book Club, to be
> issued as a 2-in-1 called Gullible's Travels this summer.
>
> See the early revies and read the first chapter for free on the Warner web
> site at http://www.twbookmark.com/books/43/0446609234/index.html
>
> Matt Hughes
> http://mars.ark.com/~mhughes
Looks interesting -- I'll probably check it out.
____________________
Richard G. Shewmaker
Astrophos Consulting
"You know, come to think of it, I'm not afraid of ants. I never was!
It's just when they all come running out of a lady's pants like that.
Yee. Creepy!"
-- The Tick, "Ants in Pants!"
Courtenay Footman
>
>Many thanks to all who posted information with regard to Candian SF/F.
>Some great information here! I was surprised and delighted to find that
>I've been unwittingly reading a number of authors all along. Now I'd
>like to get some of the material written in French!
>
was he still Canadian after that?
--
Courtenay Footman I have again gotten back on the net, and
c...@lightlink.com again I will never get anything done.
(All mail from non-valid addresses is automatically deleted by my system.)
Keith Morrison
>
> In article <3AD886B8...@astrospamawayphos.com>, Richard Shewmaker wrote:
> >
> >Many thanks to all who posted information with regard to Candian SF/F.
> >Some great information here! I was surprised and delighted to find that
> >I've been unwittingly reading a number of authors all along. Now I'd
> >like to get some of the material written in French!
> >
> How does one define "Canadian"? Van Vogt was Canadian before 1944;
> was he still Canadian after that?
According to Robert Sawyer, a "Canadian" is a person born in Canada
who resides in Canada and never lives anywhere else.
According to another version, a "Canadian" writer is anyone born in
Canada who lives anywhere in the world, or someone born anywhere else
who lives in Canada, regardless of their citizenship or how long
they've been here. Thus van Vogt, Dickson, Stirling and Spider
Robinson are all Canadian, whether they want(ed) to be or not.
--
Keith
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> In article <3AD886B8...@astrospamawayphos.com>, Richard Shewmaker wrote:
> >
> >Many thanks to all who posted information with regard to Candian SF/F.
> >Some great information here! I was surprised and delighted to find that
> >I've been unwittingly reading a number of authors all along. Now I'd
> >like to get some of the material written in French!
> >
> How does one define "Canadian"? Van Vogt was Canadian before 1944;
> was he still Canadian after that?
No. A friend of mine, who did the bibliography of Canadian sf for the
OUT OF THIS WORLD exhibit at the National Library in 1994, defined
eligibility as "Canadian sf writer" as doing the majority of their work
in Canada, as a Canadian born citizen or permanent resident/naturalized
Canadian citizen. They could, for example, live abroad, but if their
permanent home was in Canada, they counted. Hence, William Gibson,
Spider Robinson, Heather Spears, Charles de Lint, Guy Gavriel Kay,
Elisabeth Vonarburg all count, in their various ways as defined by my
bibber friend's parameters; but A.E. van Vogt and Gordon Dickson (I
think it's Gordon Dickson I mean) don't.
Alain Ducharme
> Some great information here! I was surprised and delighted to find that
> I've been unwittingly reading a number of authors all along. Now I'd
> like to get some of the material written in French!
First of all, there is Solaris (www.revue-solaris.com), currently Québec
only SF magazine. Excellent fiction, excellent articles too. Digest format,
4 issues a year, it is definitely worth a look.
As for authors, I'll name Joël Champetier, Daniel Sernine and Élisabeth
Vonarburg, who I can easily recommend for having read them recently. But
there are many others; you can check out www.alire.com, the main SF
publisher in Québec.
Alain D.
Richard Horton
<kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote:
>According to another version, a "Canadian" writer is anyone born in
>Canada who lives anywhere in the world, or someone born anywhere else
>who lives in Canada, regardless of their citizenship or how long
>they've been here. Thus van Vogt, Dickson, Stirling and Spider
>Robinson are all Canadian, whether they want(ed) to be or not.
And isn't there also the "John Buchan" definition, whereby someone
born in England, who spent a little time in Canada, never seeming to
like it (so I've heard!), then moved back to England, becomes a
Canadian author?
Captain Button
> Courtenay Footman wrote:
[ snip ]
>> How does one define "Canadian"? Van Vogt was Canadian before 1944;
>> was he still Canadian after that?
> No. A friend of mine, who did the bibliography of Canadian sf for the
> OUT OF THIS WORLD exhibit at the National Library in 1994, defined
> eligibility as "Canadian sf writer" as doing the majority of their work
> in Canada, as a Canadian born citizen or permanent resident/naturalized
> Canadian citizen. They could, for example, live abroad, but if their
> permanent home was in Canada, they counted. Hence, William Gibson,
> Spider Robinson, Heather Spears, Charles de Lint, Guy Gavriel Kay,
> Elisabeth Vonarburg all count, in their various ways as defined by my
> bibber friend's parameters; but A.E. van Vogt and Gordon Dickson (I
> think it's Gordon Dickson I mean) don't.
What about Mossad agents carrying fake Canadian passports (assuming one
wrote SF)?
--
"You may have trouble getting permission to aero or lithobrake
asteroids on Earth." - James Nicoll
Captain Button - [ but...@io.com ]
Mike Berro
published in paperback in the U.S. The book is not noticeably Canadian, at
least to me, but his two mystery novels are set in BC. See
http://www.matthughes.org for more info.
Yves Meynard's THE BOOK OF KNIGHTS is excellent fantasy; he's
French-Canadian, and this is his first in English.
---Mike
"Richard Shewmaker" <ric...@astronospamtodayphos.com> wrote in message
news:3AD66252...@astronospamtodayphos.com...
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> Wild-eyed conspiracy theorists insist that on Sat, 14 Apr 2001 21:40:55 GMT, Theresa Wojtasiewicz <tw...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Courtenay Footman wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> >> How does one define "Canadian"? Van Vogt was Canadian before 1944;
> >> was he still Canadian after that?
>
> > No. A friend of mine, who did the bibliography of Canadian sf for the
> > OUT OF THIS WORLD exhibit at the National Library in 1994, defined
> > eligibility as "Canadian sf writer" as doing the majority of their work
> > in Canada, as a Canadian born citizen or permanent resident/naturalized
> > Canadian citizen. They could, for example, live abroad, but if their
> > permanent home was in Canada, they counted. Hence, William Gibson,
> > Spider Robinson, Heather Spears, Charles de Lint, Guy Gavriel Kay,
> > Elisabeth Vonarburg all count, in their various ways as defined by my
> > bibber friend's parameters; but A.E. van Vogt and Gordon Dickson (I
> > think it's Gordon Dickson I mean) don't.
>
> What about Mossad agents carrying fake Canadian passports (assuming one
> wrote SF)?
Oh, dear me, no... they're easily disqualified because just holding a
Canadian passport doesn't count. You can spot them immediately in any
tale they tell - imagine a Mossad agent being polite and apologising for
anything. No, no, no. Can't be done.
;-)
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
Now that I think of it, Elisabeth Vonarburg (born in France, by the way)
is a vocal supporter of Quebec separatism, so she doesn't actually
*want* to be a Canadian. Maybe we should just list her as a French
author living in Quebec.
John F Carr
Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote:
>> How does one define "Canadian"? Van Vogt was Canadian before 1944;
>> was he still Canadian after that?
>
>According to Robert Sawyer, a "Canadian" is a person born in Canada
>who resides in Canada and never lives anywhere else.
>
>According to another version, a "Canadian" writer is anyone born in
>Canada who lives anywhere in the world, or someone born anywhere else
>who lives in Canada, regardless of their citizenship or how long
>they've been here. Thus van Vogt, Dickson, Stirling and Spider
>Robinson are all Canadian, whether they want(ed) to be or not.
What's the version used by the Canadian government to enforce
its cultural protectionism policies?
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> In article <5j7C6.154906$lj4.4...@news6.giganews.com>, Captain
> Button <but...@eris.io.com> wrote:
>
> > Wild-eyed conspiracy theorists insist that on Sat, 14 Apr 2001 21:40:55 GMT,
> > Theresa Wojtasiewicz <tw...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > Courtenay Footman wrote:
> >
> > [ snip ]
> >
> > >> How does one define "Canadian"? Van Vogt was Canadian before 1944;
> > >> was he still Canadian after that?
> >
> > > No. A friend of mine, who did the bibliography of Canadian sf for the
> > > OUT OF THIS WORLD exhibit at the National Library in 1994, defined
> > > eligibility as "Canadian sf writer" as doing the majority of their work
> > > in Canada, as a Canadian born citizen or permanent resident/naturalized
> > > Canadian citizen. They could, for example, live abroad, but if their
> > > permanent home was in Canada, they counted. Hence, William Gibson,
> > > Spider Robinson, Heather Spears, Charles de Lint, Guy Gavriel Kay,
> > > Elisabeth Vonarburg all count, in their various ways as defined by my
> > > bibber friend's parameters; but A.E. van Vogt and Gordon Dickson (I
> > > think it's Gordon Dickson I mean) don't.
> >
> > What about Mossad agents carrying fake Canadian passports (assuming one
> > wrote SF)?
>
>
> GGK
<snicker>
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
<sigh>
Why are you so threatened by our efforts to protect our culture? I mean,
how dare we be different from USians, right?
Pfui.
Fred Galvin
> John F Carr wrote:
> >
> > What's the version used by the Canadian government to enforce
> > its cultural protectionism policies?
>
> <sigh>
>
> Why are you so threatened by our efforts to protect our culture? I
> mean, how dare we be different from USians, right?
Just out of curiosity: how were you able to make the inference, from
that ostensibly factual question, to the questioner's opinion of
certain Canadian policies? Do the words "cultural protectionism" have
negative connotations? (But you used basically the same words,
"protect our culture", in your reply.) If so, what is the neutral or
positive term for said policies?
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<tw...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Why are you so threatened by our efforts to protect our culture? I mean,
>how dare we be different from USians, right?
Right. It cannot be borne anymore. We'll send our gunboats to enforce
the publishing schedule. Gunboat publishing, now there's an idea for a
book. :-)
vlatko (listening to a Canadian at the moment, IIRC. Robbie
Robertson.)
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/index.htm
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Captain Button
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 18:20:47 GMT, Theresa Wojtasiewicz
> <tw...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>Why are you so threatened by our efforts to protect our culture? I mean,
>>how dare we be different from USians, right?
> Right. It cannot be borne anymore. We'll send our gunboats to enforce
> the publishing schedule. Gunboat publishing, now there's an idea for a
> book. :-)
I know they have shipbourne publishing in _Tatja Grimm's World_
by Vernor Vinge, but I don't remember if guns were involved also...
Anton Sherwood
.... [various definitions of `Canadian']
: John F Carr wrote:
: > What's the version used by the Canadian government
: > to enforce its cultural protectionism policies?
Theresa Wojtasiewicz <tw...@sympatico.ca> writes
: <sigh>
:
: Why are you so threatened by our efforts to protect our culture?
: I mean, how dare we be different from USians, right?
:
: Pfui.
I won't presume to say whether John F Carr feels threatened,
but I (not being in show biz) say it's awfully good of Canada
to give us such a laugh.
--
Anton Sherwood -- br0...@p0b0x.com -- http://ogre.nu/
Richard Shewmaker
Thank you! The three above may well end up being the first three
Canadian SF authors I read in French!
____________________
Richard G. Shewmaker
Astrophos Consulting
Le sense trop précis rature
Ta vague littérature
-- Stéphane Mallarmé (1842 - 1898)
"Toute l'âme résumée"
Keith Morrison
> : Why are you so threatened by our efforts to protect our culture?
> : I mean, how dare we be different from USians, right?
> :
> : Pfui.
>
> I won't presume to say whether John F Carr feels threatened,
> but I (not being in show biz) say it's awfully good of Canada
> to give us such a laugh.
With all the merriment your politicians provide us, its just the
neighbourly thing to do.
--
Keith
Bill Snyder
It's even more fun when the pols are closer to hand -- you lose the
full effect at a distance. Would you like to try a few of them on
consignment?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
I think it was the concatenation of "enforce" with "cultural
protectionism policies" and "Canadian government". It's a question that
makes most of us who give a damn about Canadian culture see red, no
matter how innocently asked or in what terms it is couched. Canadian
culture is as touchy an issue as our socialized medicine or selling our
water in bulk to the US. It came up during initial NAFTA talks and has
risen up from time to time subsequently (there was the kerfuffle, for
example, about adverts and content in the Canadian issues of Sports
Illustrated, and Time Magazine).
Basically, we aren't USians, and most of us would like to keep it that
way. However, keeping Canadian culture distinct gets harder and harder
to do, so unfortunately, the government has to take action to protect
what we've got, as little as it is. The USians take this as a personal
affront, for some peculiar reason. Consequently, we get even more touchy
about it, and so on, and so on, and so on.
Of course, the debate rages on in Canadian SF (to get more or less back
on-topic). Is there something that distinguishes Canadian sf from sf
written by Canadians? Some say yes, others say not. Sawyer is himself
one of the nay-sayers. He cites himself along with others as defining
Canadian sf by the amount of success it garners on both sides of the
border (btw he compares his own fiction to that of Margaret Atwood as
proof that he writes Canadian SF). But a setting or a cultural reference
in a story does not make it Canadian SF.
It's kind of like defining SF itself - Canadian SF is whatever you point
at and say it is.
But it is there, if you look for it. And why should it be any different
from our British and Australian counterparts? For those as well have
their own cultural flavour. (I haven't read much Aussie sf, but a friend
of mine who does tells me they have a distinct feel to them. And from
what British sf I've been able to lay my hands on, there seems to be a
kind of rampant paranoia, with invasions and mass destructions
throughout, which, I suspest has much ado with England being an island,
with invasion being a real threat to its security. Mind you, I haven't
read any British sf recently, so this might have changed).
BTW, you might ask, "Canadian sf" or "sf written by Canadians" - isn't
that the same thing?
No. It's not.
Any writer worth his or her salt is going to write what sells. In the
past 16 years, we've seen more Canadians get into writing sf. We have
several fiction markets in Canada now, not to mention the Tesseract
anthologies, which, in the beginning showcased new Canadian talent.
Arrowdreams was an anthology which had some good stories on alternate
Canadas that for most folks outside of Canada, would not have the same
resonance as it had for those folks within Canada who read it.
However, what has happened is that more recently the stories have become
more generic, and without the cultural subtext one might have found in
stories being published - largely and only in Canada - in the '90s.
You write what sells. It's as simple as that. If that means giving up
the cultural subtext in order to sell your stories to Asimov's, well,
it's worth the sacrifice for the sale point. Canadians have no trouble
selling to Asimov's - now - and the occasional subtext does not elicit
the usual "huh?" from editors south of the border as much any more. It
may be education; or it may be more simply that writers are not writing
"Canadian" any more, because it just doesn't sell to the major markets.
Whew. A bit more of an answer to the question than expected. And, of
course, YMMV. This is just what I think, based on what I've been seeing
over the past 12 years (since I got into Canadian sf seriously).
Comments?
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
I refer you to the HBO special, THE CANADIAN CONSPIRACY.
Laugh, will you, at our expense? Ha! :-)
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 18:20:47 GMT, Theresa Wojtasiewicz
> <tw...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >Why are you so threatened by our efforts to protect our culture? I mean,
> >how dare we be different from USians, right?
>
> Right. It cannot be borne anymore. We'll send our gunboats to enforce
> the publishing schedule. Gunboat publishing, now there's an idea for a
> book. :-)
<teehee> Yeah, well, we'll just repel the invaders, same as we did in
the war of 1812 - actually, it was 1814, I think, before we kicked USian
ass out of Canada. But they left. :-)
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
I have a little list... shall we do them alphabetically or by region?
Riboflavin
>I think it was the concatenation of "enforce" with "cultural
>protectionism policies" and "Canadian government". It's a question that
>makes most of us who give a damn about Canadian culture see red, no
>matter how innocently asked or in what terms it is couched. Canadian
>culture is as touchy an issue as our socialized medicine or selling our
>water in bulk to the US.
I note that you didn't answer the question of how someone can talk about the
Canadian Ministry of Cultural Preservation without getting all of you seeing
red. Is it so sensitive that any discussion of the subject sends you into a
rage?
>Basically, we aren't USians, and most of us would like to keep it that
>way. However, keeping Canadian culture distinct gets harder and harder
>to do, so unfortunately, the government has to take action to protect
>what we've got, as little as it is.
I thought you just said that most of you want to keep Canadian culture; why
do you need the government to step in if that's really the case? If most of
Canada really wants to keep Canadian culture, won't they choose to read
books that fit with Canadian culture and buy products that support that
Canadian culture? And if people don't actually prefer Canadian culture, why
force them to preserve it? You start to look as silly as France when you
start those sorts of shennanigans of banning those terrible outside
influences that none of you want to be exposed to but which you can't help
buying when they're available.
> The USians take this as a personal
>affront, for some peculiar reason.
Personally, I find all of the 'cultural preservation' initiatives like
Canada's or Frances to be rather amusing, especially when you actually
encounter someone silly enough to believe they're a Good Thing.
>Consequently, we get even more touchy
>about it, and so on, and so on, and so on.
I think part of it is that there are a good many Americans who find the idea
of trying to lock your culture into place rather amusing.
--
Kevin Allegood ribotr...@mindspring.pants.com
Remove the pants from my email address to reply
"Life may have no meaning. Or even worse, it may
have a meaning of which I disapprove." -- Ashleigh Brilliant
Gareth Wilson
>
> I thought you just said that most of you want to keep Canadian culture; why
> do you need the government to step in if that's really the case? If most of
> Canada really wants to keep Canadian culture, won't they choose to read
> books that fit with Canadian culture and buy products that support that
> Canadian culture? And if people don't actually prefer Canadian culture, why
> force them to preserve it?
Amen, brother. Not that Canada is alone in this, of course. Every nation has
pompous snobs who can't stand popular global culture and think it's the
government's job to force their preferences on everyone else.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doug Palmer
<tw...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> But it is there, if you look for it. And why should it be any different
> from our British and Australian counterparts? For those as well have
> their own cultural flavour. (I haven't read much Aussie sf, but a friend
> of mine who does tells me they have a distinct feel to them.
This is something that drives Greg Egan up the wall:
"A Report on the Origins & Hazardous Effects of Miracle Ingredient A"
http://www.eidolon.net/old_site/issue_17/17_egan.htm
Personally, I would say that I find a difference in tone and obsessions
between Australian authors and USian ones. Which is not to say that there
isn't a considerable overlap. Greg Egan (until Teranesia) barely speaks
English, preferring abstract mathematics and physics -- a universal
language of sorts. So he's a bit of an outlier, I think.
I know nothing of Canadian SF. Nothing, I tell you!
--
Doug Palmer do...@charvolant.org http://www.charvolant.org/~doug
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> Theresa Wojtasiewicz wrote in message <3ADA7E4A...@sympatico.ca>...
> >I think it was the concatenation of "enforce" with "cultural
> >protectionism policies" and "Canadian government". It's a question that
> >makes most of us who give a damn about Canadian culture see red, no
> >matter how innocently asked or in what terms it is couched. Canadian
> >culture is as touchy an issue as our socialized medicine or selling our
> >water in bulk to the US.
>
> I note that you didn't answer the question of how someone can talk about the
> Canadian Ministry of Cultural Preservation without getting all of you seeing
> red. Is it so sensitive that any discussion of the subject sends you into a
> rage?
It's the Ministry of Culture and Heritage (and whatever else they've
tacked on - they're doing a lot of concatenations of ministries these
days). And it's not rage, not really; more like resigned irritation.
>
> >Basically, we aren't USians, and most of us would like to keep it that
> >way. However, keeping Canadian culture distinct gets harder and harder
> >to do, so unfortunately, the government has to take action to protect
> >what we've got, as little as it is.
>
> I thought you just said that most of you want to keep Canadian culture; why
> do you need the government to step in if that's really the case? If most of
> Canada really wants to keep Canadian culture, won't they choose to read
> books that fit with Canadian culture and buy products that support that
> Canadian culture? And if people don't actually prefer Canadian culture, why
> force them to preserve it? You start to look as silly as France when you
> start those sorts of shennanigans of banning those terrible outside
> influences that none of you want to be exposed to but which you can't help
> buying when they're available.
It was easier to keep our culture in front of the public when the only
channel that was available on TV was the CBC.
There are more and more Canadians who share your opinion, that it's
silly to keep Canadian culture, because there are now probably more
people who have grown up under American influences than there are
Canadians who grew up under Canadian influences. In the long run, any
government initiative to preserve Canadian culture (and that includes
Quebec trying to preserve its own within Canada, or as seems more
likely, separation from Canada) is doomed to failure, because the
external pressures will be too great. And it will be a sad day; as I
said, we aren't USians; but the pressure to become more USian gets
greater every day.
>
> > The USians take this as a personal
> >affront, for some peculiar reason.
>
> Personally, I find all of the 'cultural preservation' initiatives like
> Canada's or Frances to be rather amusing, especially when you actually
> encounter someone silly enough to believe they're a Good Thing.
And why aren't they a good thing, exactly? What is so great about USian
culture that the rest of the world has to adopt it, perforce?
>
> >Consequently, we get even more touchy
> >about it, and so on, and so on, and so on.
>
> I think part of it is that there are a good many Americans who find the idea
> of trying to lock your culture into place rather amusing.
Of course they would. It's a lack of understanding, that they themselves
have a culture, whether they are aware of it or not. This "amusement" is
also a kind of arrogance that makes those trying to save their culture
see red. Mostly, I suspect, the Americans who find the idea so amusing
may not be aware of their own cultural identity, let alone anyone
else's, and cannot, therefore, comprehend that there are others who
*are* aware of it, and would like to save it.
This isn't, btw, a blanket condemnation of all things and peoples USian;
I'm merely pointing out that there is a cultural gulf that is evident
between Canada and the US, and which, as I've said, is rapidly
shrinking, and will likely be non-existent in under 10 years. And, as I
said, a sad day that will be.
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> Riboflavin wrote:
>
> >
> > I thought you just said that most of you want to keep Canadian culture; why
> > do you need the government to step in if that's really the case? If most of
> > Canada really wants to keep Canadian culture, won't they choose to read
> > books that fit with Canadian culture and buy products that support that
> > Canadian culture? And if people don't actually prefer Canadian culture, why
> > force them to preserve it?
>
> Amen, brother. Not that Canada is alone in this, of course. Every nation has
> pompous snobs who can't stand popular global culture and think it's the
> government's job to force their preferences on everyone else.
"Force?" Hardly. More like saying, "this is what's left of our culture",
kind of like putting a preservation order on a historic house. There are
a few - myself included - who think that preserving cultural identity is
a good thing. There are more - like yourself - who demand globalized
culture (read: USian culture) and think it's a better thing. There's
room for both. And again, I ask: why are you (that's a collective "you"
btw) so threatened by it?
I recall reading Mike Resnick's PARADISE. I hated the book, but it did
illustrate some valid points on what happens when humans invade.
And we need look no farther than North American (and down under, for
that matter) history to illustrate what happens when one culture invades
another.
Michael J. Lowrey
> Many thanks to all who posted information with regard to Candian SF/F.
> Some great information here! I was surprised and delighted to find that
> I've been unwittingly reading a number of authors all along. Now I'd
> like to get some of the material written in French!
I forgot Tanya Huff, for some reason.
Also, Elisabeth Vonarburg; who by delightful coincidence will be one of
the Pro Guests of Honor at WisCon this May. WisCon, while clearly an
anglophone convention, has always had a significant element of
francophone attendees, particularly academics. (Nothing quite like
watching a francophone academic helping Richard Russell mime the titles
of SF movies of the previous year.)
As to the associated thread of "how amusing, the Canadians think they
have a culture worth preserving": one of the topics for this year's
WisCon is:
Whiter than white? If the future is going to be white, middle class and
American, can you kill me now?
(For those not aware of this peculiar habit: WisCon will sometimes have
academic papers and regular panel discussions on identical topics, if
they draw sufficient interest. The fannish take is not always
consistent with the academic one; surprise, surprise!)
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
Cultures and Communities Program
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
knows that "generic whitebread American" is a culture
tj
<3ADA7E4A...@sympatico.ca>...
> Fred Galvin wrote:
> >
[major snip]
Homework assignment for all posting to this thread:
1. Buy a 6-pack of Budweiser and/or Molson.
2. Rent the movie "Canadian Bacon".
3. Drink one or two (1-2) beer(s) while watching the movie.
4. Drink the other five-ten (5-10) while pondering how the film-maker
(sp?) satirizes both American (yes, I am one) and Canadian existance (sp?).
5. Flame the author of this post because I am so obviously ignorant and
could not possibly understand what anyone is talking about*
*As I type this, my tongue is so far into my right cheek that I am about to
fall over.
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> Theresa Wojtasiewicz <tw...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
> <3ADA7E4A...@sympatico.ca>...
> > Fred Galvin wrote:
> > >
> [major snip]
>
> Homework assignment for all posting to this thread:
>
> 1. Buy a 6-pack of Budweiser and/or Molson.
Molson if you must - Upper Canada or Creemore (so I've been told,
anyhow) is much better.
>
> 2. Rent the movie "Canadian Bacon".
I'd suggest getting THE CANADIAN CONSPIRACY as a chaser.
>
> 3. Drink one or two (1-2) beer(s) while watching the movie.
>
> 4. Drink the other five-ten (5-10) while pondering how the film-maker
> (sp?) satirizes both American (yes, I am one) and Canadian existance (sp?).
>
> 5. Flame the author of this post because I am so obviously ignorant and
> could not possibly understand what anyone is talking about*
There used to be a cartoon, featuring an eagle and a beaver in
conversation across a painted border. It was quite funny and quite
illustrative. Alas, I don't know who drew the strip or what became of
it.
>
> *As I type this, my tongue is so far into my right cheek that I am about to
> fall over.
*thump*
:-)
Riboflavin
>Riboflavin wrote:
>> Theresa Wojtasiewicz wrote in message <3ADA7E4A...@sympatico.ca>...
>> >I think it was the concatenation of "enforce" with "cultural
>> >protectionism policies" and "Canadian government". It's a question that
>> >makes most of us who give a damn about Canadian culture see red, no
>> >matter how innocently asked or in what terms it is couched. Canadian
>> >culture is as touchy an issue as our socialized medicine or selling our
>> >water in bulk to the US.
>>
>> I note that you didn't answer the question of how someone can talk about
the
>> Canadian Ministry of Cultural Preservation without getting all of you
seeing
>> red. Is it so sensitive that any discussion of the subject sends you into
a
>> rage?
>
>It's the Ministry of Culture and Heritage (and whatever else they've
>tacked on - they're doing a lot of concatenations of ministries these
>days). And it's not rage, not really; more like resigned irritation.
Looks like rage to me - the OP asked a simple question about what standards
the CMCH used for determining what was a Canadian work, when discussing how
one defines 'Canadian SF'. That question was extremely relevant to the
discussion going on, and doesn't seem offensive in any way. Yet you
responded with "Why are you so threatened by our efforts to protect our
culture? I mean,
how dare we be different from USians, right?" which certainly doesn't seem
like a reasonable response to a simple question about standards being used.
>> I thought you just said that most of you want to keep Canadian culture;
why
>> do you need the government to step in if that's really the case? If most
of
>> Canada really wants to keep Canadian culture, won't they choose to read
>> books that fit with Canadian culture and buy products that support that
>> Canadian culture? And if people don't actually prefer Canadian culture,
why
>> force them to preserve it? You start to look as silly as France when you
>> start those sorts of shennanigans of banning those terrible outside
>> influences that none of you want to be exposed to but which you can't
help
>> buying when they're available.
>
>It was easier to keep our culture in front of the public when the only
>channel that was available on TV was the CBC.
I thought you said "most of us would like to keep it that way"? If most
Canadians are so in favor of preserving 'Canadian Culture', wouldn't the
most successful TV channels be the ones pushing Canadian Culture? Though
your comment above really kind of sums it up; you don't like people having
options other than the one you'd choose.
>There are more and more Canadians who share your opinion, that it's
>silly to keep Canadian culture, because there are now probably more
>people who have grown up under American influences than there are
>Canadians who grew up under Canadian influences. In the long run, any
>government initiative to preserve Canadian culture (and that includes
>Quebec trying to preserve its own within Canada, or as seems more
>likely, separation from Canada) is doomed to failure, because the
>external pressures will be too great. And it will be a sad day; as I
>said, we aren't USians; but the pressure to become more USian gets
>greater every day.
>
Any culture that can't exist without massive censorship aimed at avoiding
exposure to new ideas is moribund and we should cheer its passing. If
'Canadian Culture' is so weak that allowing people to read/watch what they
want to will destroy it, what about it is good enough to warrant keeping?
>> > The USians take this as a personal
>> >affront, for some peculiar reason.
>>
>> Personally, I find all of the 'cultural preservation' initiatives like
>> Canada's or Frances to be rather amusing, especially when you actually
>> encounter someone silly enough to believe they're a Good Thing.
>
>And why aren't they a good thing, exactly?
Any pieces of culture that can't stand exposure to outside ideas aren't
worth preserving. Plus, I'd have to say that I'm opposed to censorship on
general principles, which makes the efforts of your Ministry not a Good
Thing without even looking at the specifics of what they're trying to
preserve.
>What is so great about USian
>culture that the rest of the world has to adopt it, perforce?
>
The parts which are so attractive that people like you feel the need to
shield your fellow Canadians from exposure to them would seem to speak for
themselves. What I find interesting is you saying 'has to adopt it' - you're
the one in favor making certain cultural things mandatory, I simply say to
let people pick their own entertainment.
>> >Consequently, we get even more touchy
>> >about it, and so on, and so on, and so on.
>>
>> I think part of it is that there are a good many Americans who find the
idea
>> of trying to lock your culture into place rather amusing.
>
>Of course they would. It's a lack of understanding, that they themselves
>have a culture, whether they are aware of it or not.
No, it's an understanding that healthy cultures change and grow over time.
One of the fundamental aspects of US culture is a willingness to incorporate
bits of other cultures into our own.
> This "amusement" is
>also a kind of arrogance that makes those trying to save their culture
>see red.
Please replace 'trying to save their culture' with 'trying to force their
idea of culture down other people's throats'.
> Mostly, I suspect, the Americans who find the idea so amusing
>may not be aware of their own cultural identity, let alone anyone
>else's, and cannot, therefore, comprehend that there are others who
>*are* aware of it, and would like to save it.
I am of the opinion that any aspects of cultural identity that cannot
surivive a free and open exchange of ideas are not worth keeping.
>This isn't, btw, a blanket condemnation of all things and peoples USian;
>I'm merely pointing out that there is a cultural gulf that is evident
>between Canada and the US, and which, as I've said, is rapidly
>shrinking, and will likely be non-existent in under 10 years. And, as I
>said, a sad day that will be.
What's sad is that there are people who cannot accept the growth and change
in their culture.
Riboflavin
>Gareth Wilson wrote:
>> Amen, brother. Not that Canada is alone in this, of course. Every nation
has
>> pompous snobs who can't stand popular global culture and think it's the
>> government's job to force their preferences on everyone else.
>
>"Force?" Hardly.
"Force" exactly.
> More like saying, "this is what's left of our culture",
>kind of like putting a preservation order on a historic house.
More like putting a preservation order on everyone's house. You're not just
talking about preserving some Canadian literature for a museum, after all,
you're talking about deciding what people are allowed to watch and what
literature they're allowed to buy.
> There are
>a few - myself included - who think that preserving cultural identity is
>a good thing.
ITYM "forcing the bits of a 'culture' that you like down other people's
throats".
> There are more - like yourself - who demand globalized
>culture (read: USian culture) and think it's a better thing.
> There's room for both.
Where have I 'demanded' globalized culture? If US culture is so good that
everyone picks it up without massive government programs to keep them in
their old culture, perhaps the old culture isn't worth keeping. A healthy
culture can stand on its own two feet; if an aspect of 'culture' is so
decrepit that it can't stand exposure to foreign ideas, then it should be
left to die off in peace. While that may lead to some kind of global culture
in a few hundred years, I don't see any exact clones of the US yet.
> And again, I ask: why are you (that's a collective "you"
>btw) so threatened by it?
First I'll ask: why do you (that's a singular "you," BTW) think I'm
"threatened" by Canadian silliness about 'preserving culture'? Look at it
this way; have you ever seen one of those movies set in the 50's in the US,
where some old man was ranting about how Rock & Roll was the Devil's Music?
That's what you 'preserve our culture' types look like to me.
>I recall reading Mike Resnick's PARADISE. I hated the book, but it did
>illustrate some valid points on what happens when humans invade.
>And we need look no farther than North American (and down under, for
>that matter) history to illustrate what happens when one culture invades
>another.
Exactly; look at the 'British Invasion' of the 60's, where British music
(esp. The Beatles) was really popular in the US. And look at how it
completely destroyed our culture; we definately should have set up a
Ministry of Cultural Preservation to protect us from the horrible effects of
having our culture change over time. Or look at US history from, oh, 1792 to
yesterday, where immigrants from a wide variety of cultures came in and
added their little bits to US culture; we definately should have created a
Cultural Preservation Ministry to prevent the terrible damage it has caused
our culture.
William Hyde
Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> writes:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:03:13 -0600, Keith Morrison
> And isn't there also the "John Buchan" definition, whereby someone
> born in England,
Scotland.
who spent a little time in Canada, never seeming to
> like it (so I've heard!), then moved back to England, becomes a
> Canadian author?
By a curious coincidence I just picked up "The 39 steps".
Buchan:
(1) Was in Canada for five years. Had he hated it there
was no reason to say that long, his term of office being
shorter than that.
(2) Traveled more in the country than any Governor General
before him, including trips to the Arctic.
(3) Died in Canada.
(4) Was not a Canadian author, though I would not be
surprised if someone has claimed him as such. His last
works were, naturally, written in Canada but not strongly
influenced by the country. IIRC they were a biography
of Augustus, and his own autobiography.
(5) His wife, Susan Buchan, was also a writer.
William Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
Jordan S. Bassior
>I think part of it is that there are a good many Americans who find the idea
>of trying to lock your culture into place rather amusing.
Exactly. Culture develops naturally; trying to force it onto a particular
course through government action is just plain silly.
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
"To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On
the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too
late." (Churchill, 1934)
--
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> In article <9baqja$89hc$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>,
> Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> writes:
> > On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:03:13 -0600, Keith Morrison
>
> > And isn't there also the "John Buchan" definition, whereby someone
> > born in England,
>
> Scotland.
>
> who spent a little time in Canada, never seeming to
> > like it (so I've heard!), then moved back to England, becomes a
> > Canadian author?
>
> By a curious coincidence I just picked up "The 39 steps".
>
> Buchan:
>
> (1) Was in Canada for five years. Had he hated it there
> was no reason to say that long, his term of office being
> shorter than that.
>
> (2) Traveled more in the country than any Governor General
> before him, including trips to the Arctic.
>
> (3) Died in Canada.
>
> (4) Was not a Canadian author, though I would not be
> surprised if someone has claimed him as such. His last
> works were, naturally, written in Canada but not strongly
> influenced by the country. IIRC they were a biography
> of Augustus, and his own autobiography.
He also wrote, while Governor-General, SICK HEART RIVER, set in Canada.
>
> (5) His wife, Susan Buchan, was also a writer.
>
> William Hyde
> Department of Oceanography
> Texas A&M University
> hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
--
Programming is a race between creating
bigger and better idiot-proof programs,
and the Universe creating
bigger and better idiots.
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> Theresa Wojtasiewicz wrote in message <3ADAE55C...@sympatico.ca>...
> >Gareth Wilson wrote:
> >> Amen, brother. Not that Canada is alone in this, of course. Every nation
> has
> >> pompous snobs who can't stand popular global culture and think it's the
> >> government's job to force their preferences on everyone else.
> >
> >"Force?" Hardly.
>
> "Force" exactly.
I reiterate: Force, hardly. Make available, yes. Make sure it's *there*
to made available, yes. Do I have to subscribe to it? No. And that's the
attitude of most people.
>
> > More like saying, "this is what's left of our culture",
> >kind of like putting a preservation order on a historic house.
>
> More like putting a preservation order on everyone's house. You're not just
> talking about preserving some Canadian literature for a museum, after all,
> you're talking about deciding what people are allowed to watch and what
> literature they're allowed to buy.
"Allowed" has nothing to do with it. You confuse freedom with liberty.
Canadians have freedom; Americans have liberty. It's not the same thing
(see Pierre Berton's essay on the subject, and you may be illuminated).
We do like to have our stuff available to us if we want it, and that's
what is at issue. For example, the USian version of Sports Illustrated
reports on USian athletes, USian sports with USian advertising. A
Canadian wants to read about Canadian athletes, Canadian sports and look
at Canadian advertsing. If it's not made available to us, we'll never
get to read a decent story about Canadian athletes. Hence, the Canadian
issue of Sports Illustrated.
>
> > There are
> >a few - myself included - who think that preserving cultural identity is
> >a good thing.
>
> ITYM "forcing the bits of a 'culture' that you like down other people's
> throats".
Again, I say, hardly. Nobody's forcing anything down anyone's throats.
>
> > There are more - like yourself - who demand globalized
> >culture (read: USian culture) and think it's a better thing.
> > There's room for both.
>
> Where have I 'demanded' globalized culture? If US culture is so good that
> everyone picks it up without massive government programs to keep them in
> their old culture, perhaps the old culture isn't worth keeping. A healthy
> culture can stand on its own two feet; if an aspect of 'culture' is so
> decrepit that it can't stand exposure to foreign ideas, then it should be
> left to die off in peace. While that may lead to some kind of global culture
> in a few hundred years, I don't see any exact clones of the US yet.
Yet it is pervasive. Cultures are lost when too much exposure to
another's overruns their own. It is inevitable; and there will always be
those such as yourself of the opinion that perhaps the old culture isn't
worth keeping if it can't stand up to the new.
Tell that to the Huron Indians. No, wait, you can't, they're all dead.
>
> > And again, I ask: why are you (that's a collective "you"
> >btw) so threatened by it?
>
> First I'll ask: why do you (that's a singular "you," BTW) think I'm
> "threatened" by Canadian silliness about 'preserving culture'? Look at it
> this way; have you ever seen one of those movies set in the 50's in the US,
> where some old man was ranting about how Rock & Roll was the Devil's Music?
> That's what you 'preserve our culture' types look like to me.
Your responses indicate something - I don't know if it's a feeling of
being threatened, or just arrogance. I don't know enough about you to
say one way or the other. OTOH, your wholesale condemnation of retaining
cultural identity is very clear, and I'm puzzled why that is.
>
> >I recall reading Mike Resnick's PARADISE. I hated the book, but it did
> >illustrate some valid points on what happens when humans invade.
>
> >And we need look no farther than North American (and down under, for
> >that matter) history to illustrate what happens when one culture invades
> >another.
>
> Exactly; look at the 'British Invasion' of the 60's, where British music
> (esp. The Beatles) was really popular in the US. And look at how it
> completely destroyed our culture; we definately should have set up a
> Ministry of Cultural Preservation to protect us from the horrible effects of
> having our culture change over time. Or look at US history from, oh, 1792 to
> yesterday, where immigrants from a wide variety of cultures came in and
> added their little bits to US culture; we definately should have created a
> Cultural Preservation Ministry to prevent the terrible damage it has caused
> our culture.
Okay; I get it now. I've been buzzed by a troll.
<sigh>
I'm such an easy target.
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
I think your irony meter was accidently turned off. Turn it back on
again and read my response.
>
> >> I thought you just said that most of you want to keep Canadian culture;
> why
> >> do you need the government to step in if that's really the case? If most
> of
> >> Canada really wants to keep Canadian culture, won't they choose to read
> >> books that fit with Canadian culture and buy products that support that
> >> Canadian culture? And if people don't actually prefer Canadian culture,
> why
> >> force them to preserve it? You start to look as silly as France when you
> >> start those sorts of shennanigans of banning those terrible outside
> >> influences that none of you want to be exposed to but which you can't
> help
> >> buying when they're available.
> >
> >It was easier to keep our culture in front of the public when the only
> >channel that was available on TV was the CBC.
>
> I thought you said "most of us would like to keep it that way"? If most
> Canadians are so in favor of preserving 'Canadian Culture', wouldn't the
> most successful TV channels be the ones pushing Canadian Culture? Though
> your comment above really kind of sums it up; you don't like people having
> options other than the one you'd choose.
The CBC has had really good programming and budget cuts
nothwithstanding, they continue to produce good programming. Mind you,
it's not as snazzy as "Survivor" but there are a few who like watching
Canadian produced television.
As for "the one [I'd] choose", again, I repeat myself for the umpteenth
time - that it is available *at all* gives me choice. Not having it
available gives me no choice whatsoever.
>
> >There are more and more Canadians who share your opinion, that it's
> >silly to keep Canadian culture, because there are now probably more
> >people who have grown up under American influences than there are
> >Canadians who grew up under Canadian influences. In the long run, any
> >government initiative to preserve Canadian culture (and that includes
> >Quebec trying to preserve its own within Canada, or as seems more
> >likely, separation from Canada) is doomed to failure, because the
> >external pressures will be too great. And it will be a sad day; as I
> >said, we aren't USians; but the pressure to become more USian gets
> >greater every day.
> >
> Any culture that can't exist without massive censorship aimed at avoiding
> exposure to new ideas is moribund and we should cheer its passing. If
> 'Canadian Culture' is so weak that allowing people to read/watch what they
> want to will destroy it, what about it is good enough to warrant keeping?
Oh, now the "censorship" spectre has been raised. The one thing I like
about Canadian television is that there is no double standard when it
comes watching films and programmes that have profane language in it.
When I watch films on an American station and have to endure the
voiced-over expletives, I shake my head in resignation. I watch the same
film on Canadian TV (non-cable) and there the expletives are, in all
their glory (except when they are running concurrently on a US station,
and then I believe the feed is from the States). The movie SEVEN was a
perfect illustration of this phenomenon.
So, don't talk to me about censorship.
>
> >> > The USians take this as a personal
> >> >affront, for some peculiar reason.
> >>
> >> Personally, I find all of the 'cultural preservation' initiatives like
> >> Canada's or Frances to be rather amusing, especially when you actually
> >> encounter someone silly enough to believe they're a Good Thing.
> >
> >And why aren't they a good thing, exactly?
>
> Any pieces of culture that can't stand exposure to outside ideas aren't
> worth preserving. Plus, I'd have to say that I'm opposed to censorship on
> general principles, which makes the efforts of your Ministry not a Good
> Thing without even looking at the specifics of what they're trying to
> preserve.
Again, you mention censorship, and where the hell did you get the idea
the Ministry is censoring anything? How is making something available in
addition to everything else out there, censorship. It doesn't follow.
>
> >What is so great about USian
> >culture that the rest of the world has to adopt it, perforce?
> >
> The parts which are so attractive that people like you feel the need to
> shield your fellow Canadians from exposure to them would seem to speak for
> themselves. What I find interesting is you saying 'has to adopt it' - you're
> the one in favor making certain cultural things mandatory, I simply say to
> let people pick their own entertainment.
Again, and I'll say this until you *get it*, Canadians are not shielded
from anything imported from the US or from anywhere else in the world.
All that is being done is to preserve and make available Canadian
cultural material. And why this is so bothersome to you, I haven't the
faintest idea.
>
> >> >Consequently, we get even more touchy
> >> >about it, and so on, and so on, and so on.
> >>
> >> I think part of it is that there are a good many Americans who find the
> idea
> >> of trying to lock your culture into place rather amusing.
> >
> >Of course they would. It's a lack of understanding, that they themselves
> >have a culture, whether they are aware of it or not.
>
> No, it's an understanding that healthy cultures change and grow over time.
> One of the fundamental aspects of US culture is a willingness to incorporate
> bits of other cultures into our own.
And why shouldn't they? We do the same. Only we feel that the Canadian
cultural identiy - as diverse as it is, and believe me, it's pretty
damned diverse and therefore not the least bit homogenous - should have
a venue for expression.
>
> > This "amusement" is
> >also a kind of arrogance that makes those trying to save their culture
> >see red.
>
> Please replace 'trying to save their culture' with 'trying to force their
> idea of culture down other people's throats'.
My statement stands, and I stand behind my statement. You are free, of
course, to substitute anything you like, because, of course, that is how
*you* feel about it. But aren't you trying to force something down my
throat by telling me to replace my words with yours? I think you just
scuppered your own argument.
>
> > Mostly, I suspect, the Americans who find the idea so amusing
> >may not be aware of their own cultural identity, let alone anyone
> >else's, and cannot, therefore, comprehend that there are others who
> >*are* aware of it, and would like to save it.
>
> I am of the opinion that any aspects of cultural identity that cannot
> surivive a free and open exchange of ideas are not worth keeping.
And you are entitled to your opinion. No problems there.
>
> >This isn't, btw, a blanket condemnation of all things and peoples USian;
> >I'm merely pointing out that there is a cultural gulf that is evident
> >between Canada and the US, and which, as I've said, is rapidly
> >shrinking, and will likely be non-existent in under 10 years. And, as I
> >said, a sad day that will be.
>
> What's sad is that there are people who cannot accept the growth and change
> in their culture.
The Canadian culture of today is far different from that of twenty years
ago, and that was far different to the twenty before that, and the
twenty before that. It's changed, and grown, and assimilated the
changes, sometimes not without tears, but mostly with an eye for what's
next, what's coming up tomorrow, and how we make this a better place to
live. Underlying it all is a little piece of commonality, that makes us
Canadian - and preserving that distinction is what makes us who we are.
James Nicoll
Riboflavin <ri...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Theresa Wojtasiewicz wrote in message <3ADA7E4A...@sympatico.ca>...
>>I think it was the concatenation of "enforce" with "cultural
>>protectionism policies" and "Canadian government". It's a question that
>>makes most of us who give a damn about Canadian culture see red, no
>>matter how innocently asked or in what terms it is couched. Canadian
>>culture is as touchy an issue as our socialized medicine or selling our
>>water in bulk to the US.
>
>I note that you didn't answer the question of how someone can talk about the
>Canadian Ministry of Cultural Preservation without getting all of you seeing
>red. Is it so sensitive that any discussion of the subject sends you into a
>rage?
Don't be an American.
James Nicoll
--
"Somehow I managed to get a job as an apprentice structural engineering
draughtsman, where I was supposed to design buildings which people would
sit in and the roof would not fall down and kill them. A big responsibility
for someone whose total education had come from PLANET STORIES." Bob Shaw
Jordan S. Bassior
>I reiterate: Force, hardly. Make available, yes. Make sure it's *there*
>to made available, yes. Do I have to subscribe to it? No. And that's the
>attitude of most people.
You don't have to subscribe to it, and nobody's saying that you do. You don't
have the right to force anyone else to refrain from subscribing to it, though.
>We do like to have our stuff available to us if we want it, and that's
>what is at issue. For example, the USian version of Sports Illustrated
>reports on USian athletes, USian sports with USian advertising. A
>Canadian wants to read about Canadian athletes, Canadian sports and look
>at Canadian advertsing. If it's not made available to us, we'll never
>get to read a decent story about Canadian athletes. Hence, the Canadian
>issue of Sports Illustrated.
If Canadians really want this, then there's no need for American-content zines
to be excluded by law -- the Canadian-content zines will outcompte the
American-content ones, won't they?
>Yet it is pervasive. Cultures are lost when too much exposure to
>another's overruns their own. It is inevitable; and there will always be
>those such as yourself of the opinion that perhaps the old culture isn't
>worth keeping if it can't stand up to the new.
>
>Tell that to the Huron Indians. No, wait, you can't, they're all dead.
Are you seriously arguing that we're treating the Canadians like we treated the
Indians? We've invaded you, killed your people, seized your land, and driven
the survivors onto reservations?
Riboflavin
James Nicoll wrote in message <9bfamt$r7e$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
>In article <9be5mc$4p9$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
>Riboflavin <ri...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Theresa Wojtasiewicz wrote in message <3ADA7E4A...@sympatico.ca>...
>>>I think it was the concatenation of "enforce" with "cultural
>>>protectionism policies" and "Canadian government". It's a question that
>>>makes most of us who give a damn about Canadian culture see red, no
>>>matter how innocently asked or in what terms it is couched. Canadian
>>>culture is as touchy an issue as our socialized medicine or selling our
>>>water in bulk to the US.
>>
>>I note that you didn't answer the question of how someone can talk about
the
>>Canadian Ministry of Cultural Preservation without getting all of you
seeing
>>red. Is it so sensitive that any discussion of the subject sends you into
a
>>rage?
>
> Don't be an American.
>
that I'm not exposed to too many horrible outside influences.
James Nicoll
Riboflavin <ri...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>James Nicoll wrote in message <9bfamt$r7e$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
>>In article <9be5mc$4p9$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
>>Riboflavin <ri...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>Theresa Wojtasiewicz wrote in message <3ADA7E4A...@sympatico.ca>...
>>>>I think it was the concatenation of "enforce" with "cultural
>>>>protectionism policies" and "Canadian government". It's a question that
>>>>makes most of us who give a damn about Canadian culture see red, no
>>>>matter how innocently asked or in what terms it is couched. Canadian
>>>>culture is as touchy an issue as our socialized medicine or selling our
>>>>water in bulk to the US.
>>>
>>>I note that you didn't answer the question of how someone can talk about
>the
>>>Canadian Ministry of Cultural Preservation without getting all of you
>seeing
>>>red. Is it so sensitive that any discussion of the subject sends you into
>a
>>>rage?
>>
>> Don't be an American.
>>
>Why not? At least I don't need a ministry of cultural preservation to ensure
>that I'm not exposed to too many horrible outside influences.
>
entering the US.
If you're an American asking about why Canadian culture thinks
it needs protection, in the context of what the US did to other cultures
they out-armed and could over-run, and given the various incursions we have
had from south of the border, that carries the same overtones as Ted Bundy
asking someone out. Sure, it might be an innocent question, not that it is
in your specific case, but why take the risk?
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Greg Egan (until Teranesia) barely speaks
> English, preferring abstract mathematics and physics -- a universal
> language of sorts. So he's a bit of an outlier, I think.
I was about to quote just that article, but I think he has different
reasons than that.
- caution: what follows contains strong opinions that Egan has never
been afraid to put forth, and that may offend somebody:
"...until science was somehow either the rightful "property" of "The
West" - which Africa didn't need or want anyway - or it was nothing but
a weapon of cultural assimilation and genocide.'
'It has been used as exactly that.'
Mosala eyed me balefully. 'No shit. Science has been abused for every
conceivable purpose under the sun. Which is all the more reason to
deliver the power it grants to as many people as possible, as rapidly as
possible, instead of leaving it in the hands of a few. It is not a
reason to retreat into fantasy - to declare: knowledge is a cultural
artifact, nothing is universally true, only mysticism and obfuscation
and ignorance will save us.' She reached out and mimed taking hold of a
handful of space, saying, 'There is no male or female vacuum. There is
no Be1gian or Zairean space-time. Inhabiting this universe is not a
cultural prerogative, or a lifestyle decision. And I don't have to
forgive or forget a single act of enslavement, theft, imperialism, or
patriarchy, in order to be a physicist - or to approach the subject with
whatever intellectual tools I need. Every scientist sees further by
standing on a pile of corpses - and frankly, I don't care what kind of
genitals they had, what language they spoke, or what the colour of their
skin was.'
(Distress, page 170)
He leant back, and ran a hand through his hair. 'But I was nineteen,
there's no getting around it. And l'd lost God. What can I say? I read
Sartre, I read Camus, I read Nietzsche - '
I winced. Michael was puzzled. 'You have a problem with Friedrich?'
The cramp tightened. I replied through gritted teeth, 'Not at all. A11
the best European philosophers went mad and committed suicide.'
'Exactly. And I read them all.'
'And?'
He shook his head, smiling, embarrassed. 'For a year or so . . . I
really believed it: Here I am, staring into the abyss with Nietzsche.
Here I am, on the brink of insanity, entropy, meaninglessness: the
Enlighteoment's unspeakable godless rational damnation. One wrong step
and 1'11 go spiralling down.'
He hesitated. I watched him closely, suddenly suspicious. Was he making
this up as he went along? A little improvised Care-for-the-Whole Patient
routine? And even if he wasn't . . . we'd had different lives, different
histories. What use was any of this to me?
I listened, though.
'But I didn't go spiralling down. Because there is no abyss. There is no
yawning chasm waiting to swallow us up, when we learn that there is no
god, that we're animals like any other animal, that the universe has no
purpose, that our souls are made of the same stuff as water and sand.'
I said,' There are two thousand cultists on this island who believe
otherwise.'
Michael shrugged. 'What do you expect from moral flat-Earthers, if not
fear of falling? If you desperately, passionately want to plummet into
the abyss, of course it's possible - but only if you work hard. Only if
you will the entire thing into being. Only if you manufacture every last
centimetre of it, on your way down.
'I don't believe that honesty leads to madness. I don't believe we need
delusions to stay sane. I don't believe the truth is strewn with
booby-traps, waiting to swallow up anyone who thinks too much. There is
nowhere to fall - not unless you stand there digging the hole.'
I said, 'You fell, didn't you? When you lost your faith.'
'Yes - but how far? What have I become? A serial killer? A torturer?'
'I sincerely hope not. But you lost a lot more than "childish things",
didn't you? What about all those stirring sermons on kindness, charity
and love?'
Michael laughed softly. 'And the least of these is faith. What makes you
think l've lost anything? I've stopped pretending that the things I
value are locked up in some magical vault called "God" - outside the
universe, outside time, outside myself. That's all. I don't need
beautiful lies anymore, just to make the decisions I want to make, to
try to live a life I think is good. If the truth had taken those things
away . . . I could never really have had them in the first place.
'And I still clean up your shit, don't I? I still tell you stories at
three in the moming. If you want greater miracles than that, you're out
of luck.'
(Distress, page 211)
Now one may not agree, and even be offended by this: but it's hardly
abstract physics or mathematics. I always think about these pages when
one talks about Egan's detachment from things human before Teranesia.
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
substitute tin to nit to mail me
http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> Theresa Wojtasiewicz said:
>
> >I reiterate: Force, hardly. Make available, yes. Make sure it's *there*
> >to made available, yes. Do I have to subscribe to it? No. And that's the
> >attitude of most people.
>
> You don't have to subscribe to it, and nobody's saying that you do. You don't
> have the right to force anyone else to refrain from subscribing to it, though.
It's a matter of choice, and having the material *there* so that you
*can* have a choice. And if that has to be mandated by law ("Canadian
content"), isn't that better than having no choice at all? It's not
*excluding* anything, which seems to be what the ire is about. It's
maintaining availability, and yes, promotion; but not censorship.
>
> >We do like to have our stuff available to us if we want it, and that's
> >what is at issue. For example, the USian version of Sports Illustrated
> >reports on USian athletes, USian sports with USian advertising. A
> >Canadian wants to read about Canadian athletes, Canadian sports and look
> >at Canadian advertsing. If it's not made available to us, we'll never
> >get to read a decent story about Canadian athletes. Hence, the Canadian
> >issue of Sports Illustrated.
>
> If Canadians really want this, then there's no need for American-content zines
> to be excluded by law -- the Canadian-content zines will outcompte the
> American-content ones, won't they?
Your population is ten times the size of ours, don't forget. There's a
weight of numbers here than we simply *can't* compete fairly against.
Most of what we get at newsstands is USian, anyway. I recall being
really puzzled when getting my knitting books about all the stuff being
advertised that I couldn't get because the items were *only* available
in the US. Not much has changed since then. Our newsstands shelves are
filled to overflowing with USian zines, simply because the market in
those areas are already full to saturation with USian imports that a
made-in-Canada product doesn't stand a chance. The market has already
been swallowed up.
>
> >Yet it is pervasive. Cultures are lost when too much exposure to
> >another's overruns their own. It is inevitable; and there will always be
> >those such as yourself of the opinion that perhaps the old culture isn't
> >worth keeping if it can't stand up to the new.
> >
> >Tell that to the Huron Indians. No, wait, you can't, they're all dead.
>
> Are you seriously arguing that we're treating the Canadians like we treated the
> Indians? We've invaded you, killed your people, seized your land, and driven
> the survivors onto reservations?
Is there an emoticon for irony? I was exaggerating the point for
illustrative purposes. :-)
Of course, there is the little matter of the war of 1812... <g>
Seriously, though, there is a pervasive USian attitude that Canadian
achievements don't count for much. When the Blue Jays, for example, were
in the World Series, and playing on USian soil for one of their games (I
think it was) a contingent of Marines - marched onto the playing field
with the Canadian flag mounted upside down. USians couldn't understand
why we were so upset about the perceived insult....
To get back more-or-less on topic, there are more Canadian publications
now than there were fifteen years ago that showcase Canadian talent.
None are what SFWA calls "professional" magazines (semi-pro at best,
small press for a goodly number of them). Some, like On Spec, are now
opening their markets to authors outside of Canada. Because none of
these publications can survive without public funding, they have to
limit their acceptance of non-Canadian submissions to retain their
Canada Council or other public arts funding grants.
One might call it exclusionary, except that the US has ten times as many
similarly sized publications as Canada, and again, it comes down to
volume imbalance, so essentially US authors don't *need* our half dozen
or so markets to sell to; but we do.
Mark Atwood
> >>
> >Why not? At least I don't need a ministry of cultural preservation to ensure
> >that I'm not exposed to too many horrible outside influences.
> >
> Why is why, of course, the USG prevents certain speakers from
> entering the US.
Analogy failure.
Said unwelcome speakers are more than welcome to publish a magazine
and market it towards US readers.
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Riboflavin
James Nicoll wrote in message <9bfdg4$3nc$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
Please explain what you're talking about, I learned a long time ago not to
try and guess at what is meant by hopelessly vague statements like that one.
> If you're an American asking about why Canadian culture thinks
>it needs protection,
Actually, the question that prompted all of this was simply asking what
standards 'Canadian culture' used to determine whether something was
Canadian literature.
> in the context of what the US did to other cultures
>they out-armed and could over-run,
Are you talking about Indians here? Canadians weren't exactly nice and kind
to Indians either, and I don't really see what relevance it has to the
discussion at hand. This 'ohh, the US wasn't nice to the natives!' blather
really doesn't make for a coherent argument, you know.
> and given the various incursions we have
>had from south of the border,
What, you mean the war of 1812, which was more than 180 years ago? Do
Canadians have some kind of 'smoke crack and talk about the war of 1812'
custom that I was unaware of, because I really don't see how a 180-year old
war is supposed to be more significant than US behavior in several wars this
century (where, in case you didn't know, we were allied with Canada).
> that carries the same overtones as Ted Bundy
>asking someone out. Sure, it might be an innocent question, not that it is
>in your specific case, but why take the risk?
So let me get this straight - because the US and Canada had a war 180 years
ago, an American asking a Canadian what standards the Canadian government
uses to determine whether a piece of literature is Canadian is equivalent to
Ted Bundy asking a girl on a date? And in 'my specific case' I wasn't the
one asking the original question which prompted this, so your message makes
even less sense.
Randy Money
>
> Kevin Allegood said:
>
> >I think part of it is that there are a good many Americans who find the idea
> >of trying to lock your culture into place rather amusing.
>
> Exactly. Culture develops naturally; trying to force it onto a particular
> course through government action is just plain silly.
>
> --
> Sincerely Yours,
> Jordan
> --
Canada isn't the first country to see the American influence as
potentially pernicious. France has been fighting this fight for at
least a couple of decades -- remember the big bruhaha over Euro-Disney?
They were, and still are, afraid of the "Disney-fication" of their
country and culture. And this from a country that has frequently
extolled the qualities of U.S. artists before many of us recognized
anything good in the work of those artists (for example, Poe, H.P.
Lovecraft, Cornell Woolrich, and many other writers, and probably still
more jazz musicians).
The capacity of our media to create a sort of electronic and print
blitzkrieg makes the phrase, "Culture develops naturally," suspect.
Left to their own devices, a culture might develop naturally, and part
of that "natural" probably includes the absorption and manipulation of
outside influences. But a culture can't develop if drowned in outside
forces. Striking a balance is difficult and one way is for a government
to say yea or nay to some imports -- as someone else mentioned, the U.S.
government has frequently denied the rights to speak in this country to
foreign nationals it considered subversive. Maybe the Canadian
government has gone too far, or maybe not; that's up to Canadian
citizens to decide.
Randy Money
(Jordan -- no flame intended here. Your post was cordial, unlike other
posts that have been rather condescending and confrontational.)
Mark Atwood
>
> The issue that's being left out of this discussion, IMHO, is the
> relative economics of the cultural industries on both sides of the
> border. American producers -- of books, tv shows, magazines,
> movies, comix -- have a wealthy market of 281 million people.
> Canada has a slightly less wealthy market of 31 million. Economies
> of scale mean that a US television series, which is already
> profitable in the States can be profitably resold to Canadian
> broadcasters for five or ten per cent of what it would cost to make
> a similar series in Canada.
Exactly the same argument can be made about books from New York and
movies from California "overwhelming and destroying the culture"
of the other 48 states.
So?
Gareth Wilson
> There are
> a few - myself included - who think that preserving cultural identity is
> a good thing. There are more - like yourself - who demand globalized
> culture (read: USian culture) and think it's a better thing.
Two mistakes at a time, here.First, global popular culture is not USian. Even if
you leave out everything that's made outside the US, from Pokemon to James Bond,
just because something is made in the US doesn't mean it reflects their culture.
For example, name a USian TV character who attends church regularly.
Second, I don't "demand" global popular culture. I hate McDonalds, reality TV,
bubblegum pop music, and a big chunk of the whole cultural package. But I don't
think it's the government's job to prop up what I do like.
Mike Kozlowski
Theresa Wojtasiewicz <tw...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>"Force?" Hardly. More like saying, "this is what's left of our culture",
>kind of like putting a preservation order on a historic house. There are
>a few - myself included - who think that preserving cultural identity is
>a good thing.
I'm amused that the defender of Canadian cultural purity here is named
Wojtasiewicz. Yes, you'd certainly hate for those filthy foreign cultures
to invade Canada.
--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
Mark Atwood
> just because something is made in the US doesn't mean it reflects
> their culture. For example, name a USian TV character who attends
> church regularly.
<bzzz>
Pat, That would be "Who are Marge and Homer Simpson?".
They also on their first marrage, enjoy a happy and satisfying sex
life, have a single income from a white collar non-managerial
technical job, live in a suburban single family house with a mortgage,
a backyard, and an attached two car garage, and they send their kids
to public school.
If you want to see what the mythical "Average American" lives like and
gets along with their neighbors, then "The Simpsons" and "King of the
Hill", minus the absurist elements, is pretty much Dead On
accurate. Likewise and similarly, the average wealth of said Average
American is realistically portrayed in those two shows.
Fred Galvin
> Exactly the same argument can be made about books from New York
> and movies from California "overwhelming and destroying the
> culture" of the other 48 states.
For that matter, the cultures of places like Alberta and Saskatchewan
are pretty much overwhelmed by the stuff coming out of Montreal and
Toronto.
Michael J. Lowrey
> Theresa Wojtasiewicz <tw...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >"Force?" Hardly. More like saying, "this is what's left of our culture",
> >kind of like putting a preservation order on a historic house. There are
> >a few - myself included - who think that preserving cultural identity is
> >a good thing.
>
> I'm amused that the defender of Canadian cultural purity here is named
> Wojtasiewicz. Yes, you'd certainly hate for those filthy foreign cultures
> to invade Canada.
Wojtasiewicz is no more a foreign name on this continent than LeFebvre,
McMullen or Scarborough. She's got as much a right to stand up for what
the immigrants of the past 500 years have crafted in Canada as anybody
else not a member of the Six Nations, Ojibway, Inuit, etc.
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
thinks SOME Southern U.S. culture clearly superior to the generic
whitebread Americana that is supplanting it, but finds most pro-South
sites tainted by Tara's Disease
Chris Galdieri
news:3ADB4BA8...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz...
> For example, name a USian TV character who attends church regularly.
The Simpsons and the Hills (from "King of the Hill") are frequently attend
church. Dana Scully on "The X-Files" has been known to attend services now
and again, and several characters from "Ed" got involved in the legal
wrangling over the possible replacement of their church's pastor.
Chris
Jordan S. Bassior
>Canada isn't the first country to see the American influence as
>potentially pernicious. France has been fighting this fight for at
>least a couple of decades -- remember the big bruhaha over Euro-Disney?
Yes. We find _that_ pretty funny too. The really hilarious part, from our
viewpoint, is that they have an official bureaucratic organization regulating
their _language_ :D
>The capacity of our media to create a sort of electronic and print
>blitzkrieg makes the phrase, "Culture develops naturally," suspect.
Why? Our media has no power to force anyone else to adopt our culture. Those
who adopt our culture do so voluntarily.
>Left to their own devices, a culture might develop naturally, and part
>of that "natural" probably includes the absorption and manipulation of
>outside influences. But a culture can't develop if drowned in outside
>forces.
Of course it can ... as part of a larger, global culture. Which is a _good_
thing.
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
Mark Atwood
> Mike Kozlowski wrote:
> >
> > I'm amused that the defender of Canadian cultural purity here is named
> > Wojtasiewicz. Yes, you'd certainly hate for those filthy foreign cultures
> > to invade Canada.
>
> Wojtasiewicz is no more a foreign name on this continent than LeFebvre,
> McMullen or Scarborough. She's got as much a right to stand up for what
> the immigrants of the past 500 years have crafted in Canada as anybody
> else not a member of the Six Nations, Ojibway, Inuit, etc.
That was indeed, the point.
William Hyde
What an absurd comment.
If you didn't have such a good Canadian name I'd
probably say something nasty.
James C. Ellis
>
> I think part of it is that there are a good many Americans who find
> the idea of trying to lock your culture into place rather amusing.
Wait until the shoe is on the other foot.
We've already seen elements of this with the red scare, the WASD, and
the "Japanese are buying up New York" panic attacks, but wait until the
day that the US is a net importer of culture rather than a net
exporter. Then see if you can laugh about cultural protectionism.
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> But I don't
> think it's the government's job to prop up what I do like.
I do. Well, somebody has to do it: you can trust the market - and you
get Big Brother and Survivor - or private mecenates, or the governament.
Italian film industry has been receiving money from the State these last
few years, and they've started producing a lot of good stuff that I
actually _enjoy_ watching, while I woulnd't have touched the
big-breasted dumb bimbos-cum-gross comedians shit they had been
producing before with a ten-foot pole. Moreover, strangely enough,
people have started noticing and now they're flocking to the theaters
and enjoying it in great numbers too. Probably, mind you, not great
enough numbers to make it profitable (dumb bimbos and gross comedians
cost a lot less than good scriptwriters and capable actors, not to
mention on-location shots), but a lot of people are enjoying good stuff
that's making their life better, and I really can't see where's the
problem in that.
I have been known to scoff at purists here that preach that Italian SF
writers should produce "Italian" SF. Somebody quoted Egan's "Miracle
ingredient A", and I would subscribe each and every word in it. But the
Italian SF market is far from self-sustaining. If somebody were to come
at me telling me that they're about to pay me to write my stuff instead
of wasting my time translating what, face it, is often (though not
always) third-class American dreck, let me tell you, I wouldn't object.
And I wouldn't find it protectionism either. Unless you think watering
your garden instead of leaving your roses to the harsh but ultimately
benign forces of the Natural Water Market is protectionism.
Mark Atwood
>
> We've already seen elements of this with the red scare, the WASD, and
> the "Japanese are buying up New York" panic attacks, but wait until the
> day that the US is a net importer of culture rather than a net
> exporter. Then see if you can laugh about cultural protectionism.
That writer's strike brewing in Hollywood is expected to last 2
years. That just might do it.
James Nicoll
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>"James C. Ellis" <ell...@cadvision.com> writes:
>>
>> We've already seen elements of this with the red scare, the WASD, and
>> the "Japanese are buying up New York" panic attacks, but wait until the
>> day that the US is a net importer of culture rather than a net
>> exporter. Then see if you can laugh about cultural protectionism.
>
>That writer's strike brewing in Hollywood is expected to last 2
>years. That just might do it.
Do Hollywood writers have second incomes or did they just
hire the union bosses from the INCO strike?
Actually, ISTR some griping in Hollywood re: foreign productions
already, esp ones taking advantage of the low CDN dollar. OTOH, CDN
productions probably don't look very foreign to the Americans because
for some reason CDN shows often don't seem to be set anywhere in Canada
in particular. No Newfoundland accents or mention of Social Credit. Which
is a pity because I think the career of the BC SocCreds would make a fine
comedy [Harris could star in the dystopian version].
ObSF: That Sterling about the Bollywood production in the UK
post-Mad Cow Worst Case Scenario.
Riboflavin
>I reiterate: Force, hardly. Make available, yes. Make sure it's *there*
>to made available, yes. Do I have to subscribe to it? No. And that's the
>attitude of most people.
>
Culture' shows? No requirements on how many books must be published about
them?
>
>> > More like saying, "this is what's left of our culture",
>> >kind of like putting a preservation order on a historic house.
>> More like putting a preservation order on everyone's house. You're not
just
>> talking about preserving some Canadian literature for a museum, after
all,
>> you're talking about deciding what people are allowed to watch and what
>> literature they're allowed to buy.
>
>"Allowed" has nothing to do with it.
It has everything to do with it, or does the ministry not require publishing
of specific books and setting aside blocks of airtime?
> You confuse freedom with liberty.
>Canadians have freedom; Americans have liberty. It's not the same thing
>(see Pierre Berton's essay on the subject, and you may be illuminated).
Sorry, I feel the need to preserve my cultural identity, so I can't be
exposed to essays from other cultures today.
>We do like to have our stuff available to us if we want it, and that's
>what is at issue. For example, the USian version of Sports Illustrated
>reports on USian athletes, USian sports with USian advertising. A
>Canadian wants to read about Canadian athletes, Canadian sports and look
>at Canadian advertsing. If it's not made available to us, we'll never
>get to read a decent story about Canadian athletes. Hence, the Canadian
>issue of Sports Illustrated.
>
And why does a ministry need to step in and force someone to make the
Canadian Sports Illustrated? Couldn't a publishing company just make and
sell it without being forced to, or would Canadians not buy it? If Canadians
wouldn't buy it without the laws, then your 'we' isn't exactly a big block
of canada. If they would, why involve the government?
>> > There are
>> >a few - myself included - who think that preserving cultural identity is
>> >a good thing.
>> ITYM "forcing the bits of a 'culture' that you like down other people's
>> throats".
>Again, I say, hardly. Nobody's forcing anything down anyone's throats.
>
So, there aren't laws in Canada requiring blocks of airtime to be set aside
for 'Canadian Culture', or requiring X% of books to be about 'Canadian
Culture'?
>> > There are more - like yourself - who demand globalized
>> >culture (read: USian culture) and think it's a better thing.
>> > There's room for both.
>
>Yet it is pervasive. Cultures are lost when too much exposure to
>another's overruns their own.
There is no such thing as too much exposure to another culture. Exposure to
other cultures enables you to take the best of both and ditch outmoded
cultural artifacts. This is even more true now that cultures have to deal
with extremely rapid technological change.
>It is inevitable; and there will always be
>those such as yourself of the opinion that perhaps the old culture isn't
>worth keeping if it can't stand up to the new.
And worse (in your case) the fact that your kids generally don't want to
live in exactly the same state as you did.
>Tell that to the Huron Indians. No, wait, you can't, they're all dead.
>
What is it with Canadians and Indians? Do you think the US is going to
invade you tomorrow and put you on reservations? And do you think that some
Ministry of Cultural Heritage would stop the US if it did? If not, why don't
you make relevant comparisons.
How about this: Tell all of the blacks in the US how great cultural
preservation is, and how the culture of the Old South should have been
protected from outside influences; we really shouldn't have ditched that
whole slavery thing. That's at least more relevant than your Huron example.
Or how about going off to Israel and telling the Jews that they should
preserve their old cultural more of 'don't make waves', despite the rather
unfortunate consequences of that during WW2?
>> First I'll ask: why do you (that's a singular "you," BTW) think I'm
>> "threatened" by Canadian silliness about 'preserving culture'? Look at it
>> this way; have you ever seen one of those movies set in the 50's in the
US,
>> where some old man was ranting about how Rock & Roll was the Devil's
Music?
>> That's what you 'preserve our culture' types look like to me.
>
>Your responses indicate something - I don't know if it's a feeling of
>being threatened, or just arrogance. I don't know enough about you to
>say one way or the other.
Uh-huh. So finding someone else's actions silly means that your either
threatened or arrogant? So, since you disapprove of the US censoring
cusswords (as you recently stated), you must either feel threatened by it or
just be arrogant. Which is it?
>OTOH, your wholesale condemnation of retaining
>cultural identity is very clear, and I'm puzzled why that is.
>
If you'd actually read what I wrote, I have absolutely no condemnation for
retaining cultural identity. What I condemn is attempts to keep a culture
static, especially by creating large government bodies dedicated to
guaranteeing cultural purity.
>> Exactly; look at the 'British Invasion' of the 60's, where British music
>> (esp. The Beatles) was really popular in the US. And look at how it
>> completely destroyed our culture; we definately should have set up a
>> Ministry of Cultural Preservation to protect us from the horrible effects
of
>> having our culture change over time. Or look at US history from, oh, 1792
to
>> yesterday, where immigrants from a wide variety of cultures came in and
>> added their little bits to US culture; we definately should have created
a
>> Cultural Preservation Ministry to prevent the terrible damage it has
caused
>> our culture.
>
>Okay; I get it now. I've been buzzed by a troll.
Or perhaps you don't recognize sarcasm? Do you think we in the US should
have set up a great bastion to keep out British music, or should have closed
our borders to prevent our pure culture from being contaminated? American
culture was not a result of Ministries desperately protecting us from
outside thoughts, it was a result of taking the best bits from everyone
else's culture and fusing them together.
Riboflavin
>Riboflavin wrote:
>> Looks like rage to me - the OP asked a simple question about what
standards
>> the CMCH used for determining what was a Canadian work, when discussing
how
>> one defines 'Canadian SF'. That question was extremely relevant to the
>> discussion going on, and doesn't seem offensive in any way. Yet you
>> responded with "Why are you so threatened by our efforts to protect our
>> culture? I mean,
>> how dare we be different from USians, right?" which certainly doesn't
seem
>> like a reasonable response to a simple question about standards being
used.
>
>I think your irony meter was accidently turned off. Turn it back on
>again and read my response.
Nope, still doesn't register as anything but some Canadian flying off the
handle. Especially since the 'I was being ironic' bit is a new defense for
said post, and earlier you were claiming that it was an issue that just
makes you see red.
>> Any culture that can't exist without massive censorship aimed at avoiding
>> exposure to new ideas is moribund and we should cheer its passing. If
>> 'Canadian Culture' is so weak that allowing people to read/watch what
they
>> want to will destroy it, what about it is good enough to warrant keeping?
>
>Oh, now the "censorship" spectre has been raised. The one thing I like
>about Canadian television is that there is no double standard when it
>comes watching films and programmes that have profane language in it.
[snip more of the same]
So what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? I don't agree
with the censorship that goes on on US television stations, but at least
it's fading away.
>So, don't talk to me about censorship.
>
The typical foreigner's dodge - 'well, since the US has some silliness, you
can't regard anything we do as silly'. You're trying to pretend that I'm
being hypocritical, but it doesn't wash since I don't agree with either set
of censorship being discussed.
>> >What is so great about USian
>> >culture that the rest of the world has to adopt it, perforce?
>> >
>> The parts which are so attractive that people like you feel the need to
>> shield your fellow Canadians from exposure to them would seem to speak
for
>> themselves. What I find interesting is you saying 'has to adopt it' -
you're
>> the one in favor making certain cultural things mandatory, I simply say
to
>> let people pick their own entertainment.
>
>Again, and I'll say this until you *get it*, Canadians are not shielded
>from anything imported from the US or from anywhere else in the world.
Again, and I'll say this until you *get it*, they are. Have you even read
your other posts, where you talk about 'too much exposure to other cultures
is a bad thing'? From what I've seen of it, the whole point of the Cultural
Ministry is to shield people from 'too much' exposure to American culture.
>All that is being done is to preserve and make available Canadian
>cultural material. And why this is so bothersome to you, I haven't the
>faintest idea.
>
And to ensure that X% of the books and X% of the airtime display it, right?
>>
>> Please replace 'trying to save their culture' with 'trying to force their
>> idea of culture down other people's throats'.
>
>My statement stands, and I stand behind my statement. You are free, of
>course, to substitute anything you like, because, of course, that is how
>*you* feel about it. But aren't you trying to force something down my
>throat by telling me to replace my words with yours? I think you just
>scuppered your own argument.
>
Call me back I create a Ministry of Replacing Theresa's Words.
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
wrote:
>If US culture is so good that
>everyone picks it up without massive government programs to keep them in
>their old culture, perhaps the old culture isn't worth keeping.
You're a funny guy, you know that? :-)
What do you know about massive government programs?
vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/index.htm
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Jordan S. Bassior
>I'm amused that the defender of Canadian cultural purity here is named
>Wojtasiewicz. Yes, you'd certainly hate for those filthy foreign cultures
>to invade Canada.
The really funny thing is that my name ("Bassior") is -- now get this --
Yiddish-Polish-French Canadian. My family name was originally something like
"Bazur" (from a word related in someway to "tailor"), my adoptive ancestors
emigrated to Canada around 100 years ago, got it morphed into "Bassior"
(mock-French), and from there one branch of our family came to New York City.
All this makes me take the whole notion of protecting authentically "native"
culture a little less than totally seriously :)
Jordan S. Bassior
>It's a matter of choice, and having the material *there* so that you
>*can* have a choice. And if that has to be mandated by law ("Canadian
>content"), isn't that better than having no choice at all?
No, it's not -- because your law deprives people of American content, which is
obviously in greater demand (if the Canadian content material was in greater
demand, you wouldn't need a law to have it available).
>Your population is ten times the size of ours, don't forget. There's a
>weight of numbers here than we simply *can't* compete fairly against.
>Most of what we get at newsstands is USian, anyway.
Why do you think that "most of what you get at newsstands" is American, if it
isn't a matter of that stuff being more in demand with the Canadian stuff?
>I recall being
>really puzzled when getting my knitting books about all the stuff being
>advertised that I couldn't get because the items were *only* available
>in the US.
Why can't your stores order stuff from American suppliers?
>> If Canadians really want this, then there's no need for American-content
zines
>> to be excluded by law -- the Canadian-content zines will outcompte the
>> American-content ones, won't they?
>
>Your population is ten times the size of ours, don't forget. There's a
>weight of numbers here than we simply *can't* compete fairly against.
The economies of scale in publishing are not so vast that, if there is a real
demand in Canada for Canadian content, it wouldn't be filled.
>The market has already
>been swallowed up.
Translation: "your people have already chosen." Why not accept their choice,
rather than trying to legislate against it?
>One might call it exclusionary, except that the US has ten times as many
>similarly sized publications as Canada, and again, it comes down to
>volume imbalance, so essentially US authors don't *need* our half dozen
>or so markets to sell to; but we do.
I call it exclusionary, whether or not you "need" the market or not.
Mark Atwood
Or magazines like Analog and Azimovs destroying fanzines...
Bill Van
>I note that you didn't answer the question of how someone can talk about
>the
>Canadian Ministry of Cultural Preservation without getting all of you
>seeing
>red. Is it so sensitive that any discussion of the subject sends you into
>a
>rage?
>
Before this discussion gets too ornery, does anyone know whether there
actually are any legislated bits of protection in place for Canadian
science fiction? Nothing obvious comes to my mind.
We have Canadian content rules for television and radio, and there's an
ongoing hassle about news magazines. But SF? It's more of an example of
what happens when you live next to the largest market in the world with
no protection. Most bookstores here in Canada carry strictly the same
book selection as American stores. The only Canadian authors commonly
stocked are the ones who began as Americans or have made it big in the
U.S. market. You have to look really hard to find most of the Canadian
authors others in this thread have mentioned. That's my experience, at
least.
>I thought you just said that most of you want to keep Canadian culture;
>why
>do you need the government to step in if that's really the case? If most
>of
>Canada really wants to keep Canadian culture, won't they choose to read
>books that fit with Canadian culture and buy products that support that
>Canadian culture?
Look at the distribution system. Canadian authors can't get shelf space
in the stores, unless they're indistinguishable from American authors. I
don't think the problem is that Canadians won't consume Canadian
culture. It's more that the publishing and distribution system is so
dominated by American companies and tastes that Canadian stuff isn't
available, and Canadian authors can't easily get published in Canada.
I might be able to support something like requiring x per cent of books
distributed in Canada to be written by Canadians, although I can see
difficulties with that. But I don't think there's any such rules in
place.
>And if people don't actually prefer Canadian culture,
>why
>force them to preserve it? You start to look as silly as France when you
>start those sorts of shennanigans of banning those terrible outside
>influences that none of you want to be exposed to but which you can't help
>buying when they're available.
>
Nobody's talking about banning anything from outside, as far as I know.
(Following the French example might mean dubbing American movies with
Newf or Ottawa Valley accents for Canadian consumption. That would be
kind of cool.)
>> The USians take this as a personal
>>affront, for some peculiar reason.
>
>Personally, I find all of the 'cultural preservation' initiatives like
>Canada's or Frances to be rather amusing, especially when you actually
>encounter someone silly enough to believe they're a Good Thing.
>
You're doing your best to get a rise with your choice of language,
especially this "cultural preservation" stuff, not to mention the
patronizing phrase "rather amusing.". Nobody's talking about
"preserving" anything. At most, we're talking about making sure there's
some shelf space for Canadian books when all the book stores and all the
distributors and all the publishers are owned by Americans. (No, we're
not quite there yet.)
>>Consequently, we get even more touchy
>>about it, and so on, and so on, and so on.
>
>
>I think part of it is that there are a good many Americans who find the
>idea
>of trying to lock your culture into place rather amusing.
>--
Who's talking about locking anything in place? Are you deliberately
mis-stating the situation, or merely misinformed?
Bill (who feels rather un-Canadian when his hackles are up) Van
Michael Brazier
wrote:
>Seriously, though, there is a pervasive USian attitude that Canadian
>achievements don't count for much. When the Blue Jays, for example, were
>in the World Series, and playing on USian soil for one of their games (I
>think it was) a contingent of Marines - marched onto the playing field
>with the Canadian flag mounted upside down. USians couldn't understand
>why we were so upset about the perceived insult....
The main reason for that was, if the roles had been reversed, the Americans
would have generally assumed that inverting their flag was a mistake, and
therefore nothing to be upset about.
--
Michael Brazier But what are all these gaieties to me
Whose thoughts are full of indices and surds?
X^2 + 7X + 53 = 11/3
-- Lewis Carroll
Richard Horton
wrote:
>
> Buchan:
>
> (1) Was in Canada for five years. Had he hated it there
> was no reason to say that long, his term of office being
> shorter than that.
>
I did say "So I've heard!" You know where I heard it? Of course you
do: on Usenet. One of the previous "Who is a Canadian author?"
threads right here on rasfw, I believe.
Certainly I concede that your sources are better than mine.
> (2) Traveled more in the country than any Governor General
> before him, including trips to the Arctic.
>
> (3) Died in Canada.
>
This is did not know, at all.
> (4) Was not a Canadian author, though I would not be
> surprised if someone has claimed him as such.
I'm pretty sure he has been claimed as a Canadian author -- I'll go so
far as to allow that if he spent his last five years there and died
there, that's not such a bad claim, though I'd certainly not agree.
So, is Sean Stewart a Canadian writer?
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)
Michael Brazier
wrote:
>Riboflavin wrote:
>>
>> I think part of it is that there are a good many Americans who find
>> the idea of trying to lock your culture into place rather amusing.
>
> Wait until the shoe is on the other foot.
>
> We've already seen elements of this with the red scare, the WASD, and
>the "Japanese are buying up New York" panic attacks, but wait until the
>day that the US is a net importer of culture rather than a net
>exporter. Then see if you can laugh about cultural protectionism.
The USA was a "net importer of culture" for most of its history as an
independent country -- our cultural domination dates back only to World War
II's aftermath. Moreover, in the _cultural_ realm American domination has
been sustained chiefly by adopting traits from other cultures and mixing
them thoroughly with our "native" patrimony. We know very well how to
handle "cultural imperialism"...
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> On 16 Apr 2001 16:03:04 GMT, hy...@rossby.tamu.edu (William Hyde)
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Buchan:
> >
> > (1) Was in Canada for five years. Had he hated it there
> > was no reason to say that long, his term of office being
> > shorter than that.
> >
>
> I did say "So I've heard!" You know where I heard it? Of course you
> do: on Usenet. One of the previous "Who is a Canadian author?"
> threads right here on rasfw, I believe.
>
> Certainly I concede that your sources are better than mine.
>
> > (2) Traveled more in the country than any Governor General
> > before him, including trips to the Arctic.
> >
> > (3) Died in Canada.
> >
>
> This is did not know, at all.
>
> > (4) Was not a Canadian author, though I would not be
> > surprised if someone has claimed him as such.
>
> I'm pretty sure he has been claimed as a Canadian author -- I'll go so
> far as to allow that if he spent his last five years there and died
> there, that's not such a bad claim, though I'd certainly not agree.
>
> So, is Sean Stewart a Canadian writer?
Yes and no. Now that he's hotfooted it back to Texas (or wherever it was
he went), I guess not, any longer, unless he comes back.
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> Therasa Wojtasiewicz said:
>
> >It's a matter of choice, and having the material *there* so that you
> >*can* have a choice. And if that has to be mandated by law ("Canadian
> >content"), isn't that better than having no choice at all?
>
> No, it's not -- because your law deprives people of American content, which is
> obviously in greater demand (if the Canadian content material was in greater
> demand, you wouldn't need a law to have it available).
We are definitely not deprived of American content. There is plenty of
American content, on TV, on the newsstands. The ratio is about 10:1,
which is roughly the ratio of USian citizens to Canadian. You would deny
us the little we have of our own content?
>
> >Your population is ten times the size of ours, don't forget. There's a
> >weight of numbers here than we simply *can't* compete fairly against.
> >Most of what we get at newsstands is USian, anyway.
>
> Why do you think that "most of what you get at newsstands" is American, if it
> isn't a matter of that stuff being more in demand with the Canadian stuff?
Market saturation. The Americans got there first, and have stayed there.
It's a fact we live with. It's why Canadian magazines on the same topics
don't stand a chance.
>
> >I recall being
> >really puzzled when getting my knitting books about all the stuff being
> >advertised that I couldn't get because the items were *only* available
> >in the US.
>
> Why can't your stores order stuff from American suppliers?
They don't want to, nor do they need to. One of the biggest USian
imports to Canada is Wal-Mart. They buy from Canadian suppliers, because
it makes sense to.
>
> >> If Canadians really want this, then there's no need for American-content
> zines
> >> to be excluded by law -- the Canadian-content zines will outcompte the
> >> American-content ones, won't they?
> >
> >Your population is ten times the size of ours, don't forget. There's a
> >weight of numbers here than we simply *can't* compete fairly against.
>
> The economies of scale in publishing are not so vast that, if there is a real
> demand in Canada for Canadian content, it wouldn't be filled.
But it has been filled - by USian imports.
>
> >The market has already
> >been swallowed up.
>
> Translation: "your people have already chosen." Why not accept their choice,
> rather than trying to legislate against it?
Because they had no choice to begin with. Am I not making myself clear
on this? The market was *already* taken by USian publications long
before the Canadian content issue came up. The legislation was brought
in to promote Canadian artists and culture, because there was something
there to promote, and it needed to be shown that there was something
there to promote.
>
> >One might call it exclusionary, except that the US has ten times as many
> >similarly sized publications as Canada, and again, it comes down to
> >volume imbalance, so essentially US authors don't *need* our half dozen
> >or so markets to sell to; but we do.
>
> I call it exclusionary, whether or not you "need" the market or not.
<sigh>
I'm reminded of the parable of the rich man who had many flocks of
sheep, and the poor man who had only one ewe lamb. As far as the rich
man was concerned, the poor man was not entitled to keep his lamb, and
so the rich man took it to add to his own flocks, leaving the poor man
with nothing.
I sense a similar situation broiling with this debate.
Mark Atwood
> >
> > The economies of scale in publishing are not so vast that, if
> > there is a real demand in Canada for Canadian content, it wouldn't
> > be filled.
>
> But it has been filled - by USian imports.
So? The Seattle demand for content is 99.8% filled with "imports" from
California, New York, and DC.
And?
Mark Atwood
> I'm reminded of the parable of the rich man who had many flocks of
> sheep, and the poor man who had only one ewe lamb. As far as the
> rich man was concerned, the poor man was not entitled to keep his
> lamb, and so the rich man took it to add to his own flocks, leaving
> the poor man with nothing.
I know every Biblical parable, and this ain't one of them.
Where can I read this story, and what was it's context?
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> Theresa Wojtasiewicz wrote in message <3ADB283E...@sympatico.ca>...
> >Riboflavin wrote:
> >> Theresa Wojtasiewicz wrote in message <3ADAE55C...@sympatico.ca>...
> >> "Force" exactly.
> >I reiterate: Force, hardly. Make available, yes. Make sure it's *there*
> >to made available, yes. Do I have to subscribe to it? No. And that's the
> >attitude of most people.
> >
> So, there are no requirements on how much airtime to give to these 'Canadian
> Culture' shows? No requirements on how many books must be published about
> them?
The CBC, I believe, just had their requirements changed to 80% or better
Canadian programming (since it has funding from the Canadian government,
this makes sense). The privately owned stations have a content amount,
as well, but it is far less.
Canadian publishers publish Canadians. They may publish others, but I
don't know the figures for that.
> >
> >> > More like saying, "this is what's left of our culture",
> >> >kind of like putting a preservation order on a historic house.
> >> More like putting a preservation order on everyone's house. You're not
> just
> >> talking about preserving some Canadian literature for a museum, after
> all,
> >> you're talking about deciding what people are allowed to watch and what
> >> literature they're allowed to buy.
> >
> >"Allowed" has nothing to do with it.
>
> It has everything to do with it, or does the ministry not require publishing
> of specific books and setting aside blocks of airtime?
I've got no idea where you are getting such draconian ideas about how
the Canadian content issue is being put into action. What do you mean by
specific books? The private tv stations can pretty much air whatever
they want. It's a credit that they also fund Canadian-made programs, to
showcase our talent.
>
> > You confuse freedom with liberty.
> >Canadians have freedom; Americans have liberty. It's not the same thing
> >(see Pierre Berton's essay on the subject, and you may be illuminated).
>
> Sorry, I feel the need to preserve my cultural identity, so I can't be
> exposed to essays from other cultures today.
This is getting past the point of civilized debate. Have I not said,
time and again, there is nothing, nothing, nothing preventing anyone in
Canada from enjoying cultural content from beyond the borders? I've said
so over and over and over, and you refuse to accept that this is true.
All you seem to be snitting about is the fact we want to protect,
promote and make available Canadian cultural content. The one does not
cancel the other.
>
> >We do like to have our stuff available to us if we want it, and that's
> >what is at issue. For example, the USian version of Sports Illustrated
> >reports on USian athletes, USian sports with USian advertising. A
> >Canadian wants to read about Canadian athletes, Canadian sports and look
> >at Canadian advertsing. If it's not made available to us, we'll never
> >get to read a decent story about Canadian athletes. Hence, the Canadian
> >issue of Sports Illustrated.
> >
> And why does a ministry need to step in and force someone to make the
> Canadian Sports Illustrated? Couldn't a publishing company just make and
> sell it without being forced to, or would Canadians not buy it? If Canadians
> wouldn't buy it without the laws, then your 'we' isn't exactly a big block
> of canada. If they would, why involve the government?
Because the publishers, in all liklihood, *would not* publish a Canadian
issue of Sports Illustrated. Why should they? They're an American
publishing house, their interests are US-centred. If you want to sell to
Canadians, you have to sell them something they want. They've got no
problem at all selling the Canadian issue in Canada, otherwise they
wouldn't keep on doing it.
>
> >> > There are
> >> >a few - myself included - who think that preserving cultural identity is
> >> >a good thing.
> >> ITYM "forcing the bits of a 'culture' that you like down other people's
> >> throats".
> >Again, I say, hardly. Nobody's forcing anything down anyone's throats.
> >
> So, there aren't laws in Canada requiring blocks of airtime to be set aside
> for 'Canadian Culture', or requiring X% of books to be about 'Canadian
> Culture'?
Answered, already. And I don't think you're accepting anything I say,
anyway, so what's the point?
>
> >> > There are more - like yourself - who demand globalized
> >> >culture (read: USian culture) and think it's a better thing.
> >> > There's room for both.
> >
> >Yet it is pervasive. Cultures are lost when too much exposure to
> >another's overruns their own.
>
> There is no such thing as too much exposure to another culture. Exposure to
> other cultures enables you to take the best of both and ditch outmoded
> cultural artifacts. This is even more true now that cultures have to deal
> with extremely rapid technological change.
Interestingly, an English professor acquaintance of mine pointed out to
me this evening that in the early days of the US, there was much
frustration because all the culture they had was British, and that it
was very difficult to get American voices heard, and published, and
promoted. And now you are proposing that promotion and development of a
nation's cultural heritage must perforce be stopped simply because it is
a "cultural artifact?" Puh-leeze.
>
> >It is inevitable; and there will always be
> >those such as yourself of the opinion that perhaps the old culture isn't
> >worth keeping if it can't stand up to the new.
>
> And worse (in your case) the fact that your kids generally don't want to
> live in exactly the same state as you did.
Who expects them to?
>
> >Tell that to the Huron Indians. No, wait, you can't, they're all dead.
> >
> What is it with Canadians and Indians? Do you think the US is going to
> invade you tomorrow and put you on reservations? And do you think that some
> Ministry of Cultural Heritage would stop the US if it did? If not, why don't
> you make relevant comparisons.
Check your irony meter.
>
> How about this: Tell all of the blacks in the US how great cultural
> preservation is, and how the culture of the Old South should have been
> protected from outside influences; we really shouldn't have ditched that
> whole slavery thing. That's at least more relevant than your Huron example.
> Or how about going off to Israel and telling the Jews that they should
> preserve their old cultural more of 'don't make waves', despite the rather
> unfortunate consequences of that during WW2?
This is *really* starting to descend into sheer silliness.
>
> >> First I'll ask: why do you (that's a singular "you," BTW) think I'm
> >> "threatened" by Canadian silliness about 'preserving culture'? Look at it
> >> this way; have you ever seen one of those movies set in the 50's in the
> US,
> >> where some old man was ranting about how Rock & Roll was the Devil's
> Music?
> >> That's what you 'preserve our culture' types look like to me.
> >
> >Your responses indicate something - I don't know if it's a feeling of
> >being threatened, or just arrogance. I don't know enough about you to
> >say one way or the other.
>
> Uh-huh. So finding someone else's actions silly means that your either
> threatened or arrogant? So, since you disapprove of the US censoring
> cusswords (as you recently stated), you must either feel threatened by it or
> just be arrogant. Which is it?
I never said I disapproved of it - I said I was amused by it.
>
> >OTOH, your wholesale condemnation of retaining
> >cultural identity is very clear, and I'm puzzled why that is.
> >
> If you'd actually read what I wrote, I have absolutely no condemnation for
> retaining cultural identity. What I condemn is attempts to keep a culture
> static, especially by creating large government bodies dedicated to
> guaranteeing cultural purity.
There is no attempt whatsoever at keeping Canadian culture static. What
there is, in fact, is an attempt to promote Canadian talent, in Canada.
I've said it before: there is no homogenous Canadian culture. It as
varied as each of the regions, provinces, and even down to the cities
and towns. What's so awful about giving those voices a chance to be
heard?
>
> >> Exactly; look at the 'British Invasion' of the 60's, where British music
> >> (esp. The Beatles) was really popular in the US. And look at how it
> >> completely destroyed our culture; we definately should have set up a
> >> Ministry of Cultural Preservation to protect us from the horrible effects
> of
> >> having our culture change over time. Or look at US history from, oh, 1792
> to
> >> yesterday, where immigrants from a wide variety of cultures came in and
> >> added their little bits to US culture; we definately should have created
> a
> >> Cultural Preservation Ministry to prevent the terrible damage it has
> caused
> >> our culture.
> >
> >Okay; I get it now. I've been buzzed by a troll.
>
> Or perhaps you don't recognize sarcasm? Do you think we in the US should
> have set up a great bastion to keep out British music, or should have closed
> our borders to prevent our pure culture from being contaminated? American
> culture was not a result of Ministries desperately protecting us from
> outside thoughts, it was a result of taking the best bits from everyone
> else's culture and fusing them together.
I will say it again, and I will keep saying it - it's about availability
and promotion of Canadian talent, and yes, giving them the venue to make
it profitable for them to stay at home instead of skiving off elsewhere
to make it big. We want our talent to have the opportunity to make it
big at home, to appreciate them, to showcase them, to promote them.
I don't think that's such a bad thing.
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> Theresa Wojtasiewicz wrote:
>
> > There are
> > a few - myself included - who think that preserving cultural identity is
> > culture (read: USian culture) and think it's a better thing.
>
> you leave out everything that's made outside the US, from Pokemon to James Bond,
> just because something is made in the US doesn't mean it reflects their culture.
> For example, name a USian TV character who attends church regularly.
Eric Camden, SEVENTH HEAVEN.
> Second, I don't "demand" global popular culture. I hate McDonalds, reality TV,
> bubblegum pop music, and a big chunk of the whole cultural package. But I don't
> think it's the government's job to prop up what I do like.
Different strokes. I'm not saying the program is perfect - far from it -
but there is far more Canadian talent working at home now (as well as
abroad), and I think we're the better for it.
And I forgot <shudder> about Pokemon. Did you have to remind me? :-)
And by the way: we export a lot of our TV programs, and it's very well
received abroad. If we didn't have government support to promote
Canadian talent, we wouldn't have the content to export.
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> In article <9bfdg4$3nc$1...@panix3.panix.com>, jdni...@panix.com says...
> >
>
> > If you're an American asking about why Canadian culture thinks
> >it needs protection, in the context of what the US did to other cultures
> >they out-armed and could over-run, and given the various incursions we have
> >had from south of the border, that carries the same overtones as Ted Bundy
> >asking someone out. Sure, it might be an innocent question, not that it is
> >in your specific case, but why take the risk?
> >
>
> The issue that's being left out of this discussion, IMHO, is the relative
> economics of the cultural industries on both sides of the border. American
> producers -- of books, tv shows, magazines, movies, comix -- have a wealthy
> market of 281 million people. Canada has a slightly less wealthy market of 31
> million. Economies of scale mean that a US television series, which is
> already profitable in the States can be profitably resold to Canadian
> broadcasters for five or ten per cent of what it would cost to make a similar
> series in Canada. The same applies to running an extra million copies of a US
> magazine on top of ten million already run for the American market, or ten
> thousand paperbacks on top of an existing hundred thousand. The disparate
> costs per unit make true competition impossible.
>
> If we just leave it to the economics of the market, which has always been the
> US position in government-to-government talks on these matters,
> Canadian-produced materials will simpy be squeezed out of the domestic market.
What he said, and better than I could, in fewer words, too. Well done!
>
>
> OTOH, I see by the latest US census statistics that Spanish-speaking Americans
> are by far the fastest growing population group. We've already seen evidence
> of irritation by some Americans at the proliferation of Spanish-language
> within the official culture -- e.g., the initiatives to make English the only
> language in schools and government -- so it will be interesting to see how the
> English-speaking American, especially in places like California and the
> southwest, reacts to a United States in which hispanic culture is rapidly
> becoming dominant. The US may someday have its own Department of Culture and
> Heritage Preservation.
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> On 16 Apr 2001, Mark Atwood wrote:
>
> > Exactly the same argument can be made about books from New York
> > and movies from California "overwhelming and destroying the
> > culture" of the other 48 states.
>
> For that matter, the cultures of places like Alberta and Saskatchewan
> are pretty much overwhelmed by the stuff coming out of Montreal and
> Toronto.
Or Vancouver, for that matter.
Mark Atwood
>
> This is getting past the point of civilized debate. Have I not said,
> time and again, there is nothing, nothing, nothing preventing anyone in
> Canada from enjoying cultural content from beyond the borders?
I can think of "something, something, something".
The money you paid in taxes, to support the subsidized Canadian
content, could have been spent buying a book that YOU decided to read,
instead of supporting a content source soley on the residency of it's
creator.
There is a continuum, between the govt taking zero tax money, and taking
all of your "extra cash". You can see how the second would prevent
a Canadian taxpayer from buying books? That effect doesnt drop to zero
when that rate drops from 100% to 10% to even 2%.
You dont get "nothing, nothing, nothing preventing" until that rate drops to 0%
Every CAD your govt takes in taxes and spends on supporting local
content, is a CAD you can't choose yourself what to spend it on.
If supporting Canadian content is so important to Canadian citizens, then
they would freely of their own will buy Canadian content, wouldn't they?
Wouldn't they?
Wouldn't they?
You still havn't explained why Canadians won't buy Canadian content without
the Canadian gov't doing it for you.
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> In article <9be5mc$4p9$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, "Riboflavin"
> <ri...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >I note that you didn't answer the question of how someone can talk about
> >the
> >Canadian Ministry of Cultural Preservation without getting all of you
> >seeing
> >red. Is it so sensitive that any discussion of the subject sends you into
> >a
> >rage?
> >
>
> Before this discussion gets too ornery, does anyone know whether there
> actually are any legislated bits of protection in place for Canadian
> science fiction? Nothing obvious comes to my mind.
None specific. I know that if a publication is supported by Canada
Council grants, they have to have at minimum 80% Canadian content.
>
> We have Canadian content rules for television and radio, and there's an
> ongoing hassle about news magazines. But SF? It's more of an example of
> what happens when you live next to the largest market in the world with
> no protection. Most bookstores here in Canada carry strictly the same
> book selection as American stores. The only Canadian authors commonly
> stocked are the ones who began as Americans or have made it big in the
> U.S. market. You have to look really hard to find most of the Canadian
> authors others in this thread have mentioned. That's my experience, at
> least.
There is nothing in place vis-a-vis distribution. One can't get ON SPEC
except by subscription or in specialty bookstores (it's not availabe at
Chapters, at least, not the last time I looked). It's a bottom line
thing: Canadian publishers can't afford the exorbitant discounts big box
bookstores demand because they don't produce the volume USian publishers
do, so they sell very few through such stores, but are more likely to be
found in independent bookstores.
>
> >I thought you just said that most of you want to keep Canadian culture;
> >why
> >do you need the government to step in if that's really the case? If most
> >of
> >Canada really wants to keep Canadian culture, won't they choose to read
> >books that fit with Canadian culture and buy products that support that
> >Canadian culture?
>
> Look at the distribution system. Canadian authors can't get shelf space
> in the stores, unless they're indistinguishable from American authors. I
> don't think the problem is that Canadians won't consume Canadian
> culture. It's more that the publishing and distribution system is so
> dominated by American companies and tastes that Canadian stuff isn't
> available, and Canadian authors can't easily get published in Canada.
This is very true, particularly with sf writers. Tesseract Books, as far
as I know, is the only publisher exclusively of sf books in Canada. I'm
not sure who publishes Margaret Atwood - is it M&S? - but she writes
dystopias, mostly, which skirts the sfnal label without actually being
marred by it. Big Canadian publishers won't touch sf under any
circumstances. Our market won't bear it, especially with the
availability of sfnal books from US publishing houses.
There was one publisher - I think it was Baen - who put "Canadian
author" with a bright red maple leaf on the cover to distinguish it from
others which were not by Canadian authors. I don't know if this worked
as a marketing device. I did go into an independent bookstore once and
was surprised to discover, in conversation with the staff, that they did
get requests for sf written by Canadians, and they were very pleased
when I pointed out that the author of VENTUS was Canadian, and they so
indicated it on the shelf.
>
> I might be able to support something like requiring x per cent of books
> distributed in Canada to be written by Canadians, although I can see
> difficulties with that. But I don't think there's any such rules in
> place.
For sf specifically, there is nothing. Sf is simply not considered
something that should be supported, alas.
No relation to Billy Van? (I had to ask)
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> Theresa Wojtasiewicz <tw...@sympatico.ca> writes:
> > >
> > > The economies of scale in publishing are not so vast that, if
> > > there is a real demand in Canada for Canadian content, it wouldn't
> > > be filled.
> >
> > But it has been filled - by USian imports.
>
> So? The Seattle demand for content is 99.8% filled with "imports" from
> California, New York, and DC.
>
> And?
I don't understand what you're asking.
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> Theresa Wojtasiewicz <tw...@sympatico.ca> writes:
> >
> > This is getting past the point of civilized debate. Have I not said,
> > time and again, there is nothing, nothing, nothing preventing anyone in
> > Canada from enjoying cultural content from beyond the borders?
>
> I can think of "something, something, something".
>
> The money you paid in taxes, to support the subsidized Canadian
> content, could have been spent buying a book that YOU decided to read,
> instead of supporting a content source soley on the residency of it's
> creator.
And if they hadn't supported the Canadian, I would not have the choice
to read him/her. I just don't see why you're not getting the picture on
this. It's about *more* choices, not fewer.
>
> There is a continuum, between the govt taking zero tax money, and taking
> all of your "extra cash". You can see how the second would prevent
> a Canadian taxpayer from buying books? That effect doesnt drop to zero
> when that rate drops from 100% to 10% to even 2%.
Even the GST has not prevented Canadians from buying books and
magazines. When it first came in, there were many doom-sayers about the
demise of the Canadian publishing industry. So far, the GST has had very
little, if any, deletorious effect on the book-buying public (it's the
big box stores that could spell the demise of Canadian publishing, if
they insist on exorbitant discounts which the smaller Canadian
publishing industry cannot support, but that's another can of worms).
>
> You dont get "nothing, nothing, nothing preventing" until that rate drops to 0%
And yet people continue to buy books, despite the GST. I wonder why?
>
> Every CAD your govt takes in taxes and spends on supporting local
> content, is a CAD you can't choose yourself what to spend it on.
I'll say this again. And again. And again. It provides more choices, not
fewer.
>
> If supporting Canadian content is so important to Canadian citizens, then
> they would freely of their own will buy Canadian content, wouldn't they?
>
> Wouldn't they?
>
> Wouldn't they?
>
> You still havn't explained why Canadians won't buy Canadian content without
> the Canadian gov't doing it for you.
I'll say this again, and I'll keep on saying it, until you get it. The
Canadian government is ensuring that we have the content to be able to
choose to view it/read it/listen to it. If they didn't, it wouldn't be
there, certainly not as much as we have now, and we would not have a
choice. Government support of Canadian content provides a venue for that
content to be viewed. It supports Canadian talent being developed at
home. It gives Canadians a chance to see something *other* than imports
from elsewhere, a chance to say, "that was really good, I want more."
It's about more choices, not fewer. And I think we're the richer for it.
Mark Atwood
Then we will never understand each other's position then.
Katie Schwarz
>Theresa Wojtasiewicz <tw...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>> I'm reminded of the parable of the rich man who had many flocks of
>> sheep, and the poor man who had only one ewe lamb. As far as the
>> rich man was concerned, the poor man was not entitled to keep his
>> lamb, and so the rich man took it to add to his own flocks, leaving
>> the poor man with nothing.
>
>I know every Biblical parable, and this ain't one of them.
>
>Where can I read this story, and what was it's context?
1 Samuel, chapter 12.
--
Katie Schwarz
"There's no need to look for a Chimera, or a cat with three legs."
-- Jorge Luis Borges, "Death and the Compass"