Talk:Canadian literature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

What about writers like Rudy Wiebe or Miriam Toews? I think some information about "Mennonite-Canadian literature" on this page would be quite usefull... (Peter Wiens)

Someone who knows more about it than I do really ought to put much more material about French-Canadian literature. I'm startled that there's no material here about that. - Montréalais

Why be startled? The page was mostly written by Sara Parks Ricker, who has an English degree. Apparently no one who knows about French-Canadian literature has discovered this article yet. --Stephen Gilbert 02:31 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC) ---

There's a really good resource for Canadian literature online at http://www.canadiana.org/eco/index.html ("Early Canadiana Online is a digital library containing over 1,410,000 pages in more than 8,400 volumes.") I'm not yet familiar with the new article-structure, but it might be worthwhile adding this URL in an 'external links' section. -- April 03:03, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There is no mention of Canadian Native literature in this entire article. Particularly in post-modern lit, the Canadian Native voice is strong and brings a very unique perspective to Canadian Lit. I'm new and don't want to mess with this article too much. Any suggestions on changing it or adding a section on this "third root"? -- Amanda 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I find this sentence rather strange: "Canada only officially became a country on July 1, 1867, so some have argued that what was written there before that time was really the literature of British citizens living away from Britain, French citizens away from France, etc.". I am not sure that writers in Upper Canada would have considered themselves as "British" writers, but for sure French-speaking writers in Québec (or Lower Canada) were not "French citizens". Maybe someone can rewrite this sentence, or just drop it. -- Gsandi 18:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

In reply to above: They kind of were or more like British Subjects. This whole "Canadian" thing didn't really start until after the Second World War and it wasn't until 1949 we got a separate citizenship. Up until then most people living in Canada besides some French Canadiens were happy being British subjects. There was no such thing as British citizens at the time either and maybe should be changed to subjects? As I wrote about the tree of England and France, they planted the seeds. So we are of the same seed and are roots come from the same place we are merely a different branch of this one big tree. If you look at Canada and its culture by itself it seems quite small and little but if you add on our origins of Great Britain and the British Empire our culture is really quite grand and impressive. That is why we have this so called identity crisis because we don't look at all of our history and origins.Matthew Samuel Spurrell 17:05, 12 May 2006 {UTC}

Please note that most of the content I have deleted is written in essay style, with there being no apparent solution for making it encyclopedic. Moreover, most of the information presented is too specific, and lacks sources. The sentences are long and meandering. Some are just plain silly, like Canadian literature, while often implying an underlying love and concern for the nation, is not rah-rah patriotic propaganda. Many of them seem like verbatim quotes from Canadian lectures, as indicated by the many references to colleges and professors. Rintrah 18:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There are too many examples. It seems that every second sentence is about someone's book. I have cleaned up the most ridiculous content, which covered a large part of the article. Rintrah 18:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire page should be rewritten. It is, first of all, ridiculous to assume that English Canadian literature today derives from a British model of writing. It doesn't, and it hasn't for forty years. The bicultural model for "Canadian" literature ignores the advent of nationalism in Quebec since the 1970s (so we should talk about English Canadian and Quebecois literatures--the article leaves out just about everything to do with la francophonie, which is embarassing). Biculturalism (as opposed to bilingualism) ignores the impact of multiculturalism on Canada itself and on the literary scene since the 1980s in particular. And, as others have noted, it ignores other kinds of writing like Aboriginal writing in Canada, writing by expatriates or writing with reference to one's ethnic experience. Frankly, "nature" themes do not any longer characterize most literature written in Canada today--the criticism which assumed this to be true is almost 30 years old. The copyright references for the generalizations in here would therefore have to be for works of thematic criticism which are decades out of print. Come on! The Canadian Encyclopedia articles are better, and they are out of date by a decade!