具體描述
Eastern Encounters releases early Canadian women writers from a simple focus on autobiography and racial politics and interrogates their specific and sophisticated Asian influences. With a compelling reconstruction of historical context, Ganz has created perhaps the first book in a much-needed series that will revisit Canadian nationalism through the important cultural exchanges she examines. Though shaped with an Asian readership in mind, Eastern Encounters is an important work for all who wish to challenge the notion that Judeo-Christian traditions almost exclusively shaped early Canadian discourse.
著者信息
作者簡介
Shoshannah Ganz
Shoshannah Ganz is Associate Professor of English at Grenfell Campus, Memorial University of Newfoundland in Canada. Her areas of interest include Canadian literature; Canadian literature and ecology; and the influence of Japanese literature and culture on Canadian writers and writing. Shoshannah has published on a number of Canadian authors and co-edited The Ivory Thought: Essays on Al Purdy with the University of Ottawa Press in 2008. Her current research looks at the way industry is figured in the literature of Canada and Japan and the impacts of industry on humans and the more-than-human environment. This research extends beyond the literary texts to explore the remaking and remarketing of the post-industrial landscapes of Japan and Canada as tourist destinations.
Shoshannah Ganz
Shoshannah Ganz is Associate Professor of English at Grenfell Campus, Memorial University of Newfoundland in Canada. Her areas of interest include Canadian literature; Canadian literature and ecology; and the influence of Japanese literature and culture on Canadian writers and writing. Shoshannah has published on a number of Canadian authors and co-edited The Ivory Thought: Essays on Al Purdy with the University of Ottawa Press in 2008. Her current research looks at the way industry is figured in the literature of Canada and Japan and the impacts of industry on humans and the more-than-human environment. This research extends beyond the literary texts to explore the remaking and remarketing of the post-industrial landscapes of Japan and Canada as tourist destinations.
圖書目錄
Dedication
Introduction
1 Sara Jeannette Duncan, Mrs. Howard Vincent and Ellen Agnes Bilbrough: Canadian Travel Writing About Japan, China, and India
2 A Fictional Remembering of India? Anna Leonowens’s Travel Writing
3 The Eastern Threat to Women’s Enfranchisement in Nellie McClung’s Purple Springs
4 Literary Fake or Translating Genius? Onoto Watanna’s Translations of Japanese Literary Motifs from The Tale of Genji in Tama (1910) and The Honourable Miss Moonlight (1912)
5 The Teachings of the Compassionate Beck: Buddhist Philosophy, ilgrimage, and The House of Fulfilment
Postscript
Acknowledgements
Previously Published
Works Consulted
Index
Introduction
1 Sara Jeannette Duncan, Mrs. Howard Vincent and Ellen Agnes Bilbrough: Canadian Travel Writing About Japan, China, and India
2 A Fictional Remembering of India? Anna Leonowens’s Travel Writing
3 The Eastern Threat to Women’s Enfranchisement in Nellie McClung’s Purple Springs
4 Literary Fake or Translating Genius? Onoto Watanna’s Translations of Japanese Literary Motifs from The Tale of Genji in Tama (1910) and The Honourable Miss Moonlight (1912)
5 The Teachings of the Compassionate Beck: Buddhist Philosophy, ilgrimage, and The House of Fulfilment
Postscript
Acknowledgements
Previously Published
Works Consulted
Index
圖書序言
Introduction (Excerpt)
Canadian Nationalism
The question of what constitutes Canadian identity and the closely related question of what represents a Canadian literary tradition and history have been at the core of the activities of Canadian literary critics and writers since the nascence of the Canadian nation with, and even before, confederation in 1867. In the early pre- and post-confederation years, a number of poets and writers were searching for Canadian topics and a poetry that could be celebrated as uniquely Canadian. Satirizing this struggle in the April 27, 1929 issue of the McGill Fortnightly Review, Montreal poet and critic F. R. Scott (1899–1985) published his much-quoted poetic critique of the Canadian Authors’ Association, an organization founded in 1921 “to promote the interests of Canadian writers” (Bentley 3). “The Canadian Authors Meet” refers back to the poets collectively known as the Confederation poets, “[Bliss] Carman, [Archibald] Lampman, [Sir Charles G. D.] Roberts, [William Wilfred] Campbell, [Duncan Campbell] Scott” (line 10). The poem concludes by summing up the state of establishment Canadian poetry as follows: “O Canada, O Canada, Oh can / A day go by without new authors springing / To paint the native maple, and to plan / More ways to set the selfsame welkin ringing?” (lines 21–24). Against this background of nationalist fervour encapsulated by declarations of “O Canada” and the “native maple,” F. R. Scott and other modernist poets were attempting to develop and define a more rigorous, experimental, and particularly international poetry—a poetry A. J. M. Smith (1902–1980) would call “cosmopolitan” in the Preface to the 1943 anthology The Book of Canadian Poetry (1943; rev. 1948, 1957). The modernist poetic and political opposition to the rhetoric of the local and national obsessions that had kept the “selfsame welkin ringing” for the first fifty years of Canadian literary history marked a shift in Canadian literature and culture.
While the above is a standard introduction to Canadian nationalist topics and values and the cosmopolitan perspective, as introduced by male critics/poets such as A. J. M. Smith and F. R. Scott, there also exists a parallel and somewhat different poetic history that chronicles not the “maple leaf forever,” but subtle expressions of Eastern influence and sensibility. The all-but-forgotten Canadian modernist poet Louise Morey Bowman (1882–1944), hailed in her day by American modernist poets, questions colonial presence in India in poems such as “Garden in Agra,” which she begins by asking, “Cool-blossomed English garden! What wide fate / Set you in burning breathless India?” (lines 1–2). The poem was originally published in Canadian Author’s Association Poetry Year Book 1926–1927 and republished by Wanda Campbell as part of her early Canadian women’s poetry recovery project in Hidden Rooms (2000). Bowman likewise works in the Japanese form of Hokku, showing—like many of the American modernist poets, and well ahead of her male Canadian modernist counterparts—the influence of Japanese poetics on the sparseness and form of modernist poetry. Part of Dream Tapestries (1924), “Twelve Hokku on a Canadian Theme” and “Life Sequence (In the Hokku Manner)” are republished in Campbell’s Hidden Rooms as early examples of the Japanese influence on Canadian women’s poetry. Bowman, among others, illustrates how women’s voices and the influence of the East on Canadian modernism and the Canadian literary tradition have been, as Campbell’s title clearly shows, hidden and excluded from Canadian history and the Canadian literary canon. This book is dedicated to the study of Canadian prose fiction and non-fiction. However, like Wanda Campbell’s anthology of early Canadian women’s poetry, this project is an attempt to recover women’s voices, and particularly those Canadian women influenced by Japan, India, and China.
The study of Canadian literature as a field and the efforts to define Canadian nationalism emerged together in the 1960s, with contributions by a number of leading writers and critics, including most famously George Grant, Northrop Frye, Margaret Atwood, and Robert Kroetsch. While I will be outlining their theories of Canadian nationalism—particularly for a readership in Asia, who may not be familiar with their ideas—I will intersperse and conclude this survey by questioning the ways in which the ideas about nationhood promoted by these writers and thinkers are complicated or reinforced by the history and literature relating to Asian Canadian identity.
In 1965, nearly a hundred years after confederation, George Grant would ask “can the disappearance of an unimportant nation be worthy of serious grief?” (3). In his “Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism” Grant names many of the historical characteristics to which Canada looked in defining its collective identity. These qualities include, most succinctly “[t]he inherited determinism not to be Americans” (6) and allegiance to the British Crown as expressing “a continuing loyalty to the state” (6). Canada, writes Grant, was based on the “inchoate desire to build . . . a society with a greater sense of order and restraint than freedom-loving republicanism would allow” (6). Grant argues that “Canada’s disappearance was a matter of necessity” (4) and further that “[t]he aspirations of progress have made Canada redundant” (4). However, in the years of early nationhood (defined in this study as 1867–1929), Canada, in Grant’s estimation, was still attempting to preserve aspects of the British Crown in order to “distinguish [Canada] from the United States” (7). This summation undoubtedly explains aspects of early Canadian identity and culture. But in the case of writers such as Sara Jeannette Duncan, while connections to Britain existed in a limited sense, Canadian identity was expressed chiefly in setting itself apart from both the British and the American influences. This can be widely observed in early Canadian literature. However, Grant is not writing about or referring to the literature of early Canada; rather, his thesis is that “[t]he purpose of life is consumption” (7). When looking at early and contemporary Canada from an economic perspective, Grant’s estimations hold some truth. Canada’s economic ties with Britain in the nineteenth century were a necessary reality, just as, in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, trade with the United States and participation in global corporations is part of the Canadian and global economy. However, while the early Canadian women writers do express some relationship to Britain, chiefly through trade, the literature expresses a stronger determination to define Canadian identity as different from both British and American identity.
Northrop Frye, writing in the same year as George Grant, in his “Conclusion to A Literary History of Canada” (ed. Carl F. Klinck 1965) in referring to the literary history of Canada, settles on a single metanarrative for Canada as a nation. Of further importance to this study, Frye connects Canadian identity formation to the East. He writes, “Canada began as an obstacle, blocking the way to the treasures of the East, to be explored only in the hope of finding a passage through it. English Canada continued to be that long after what is now the United States had become a defined part of the Western world” (10). While Frye goes on to echo Grant’s determination of Canada as defined partly in opposition to the United States and partly through its alignment with the values and history of Britain, Frye does not see Canada as being lost to global trade or the American market economy. Rather, Frye develops the difference between Canada and the United States by suggesting that “[t]o enter the United States is a matter of crossing an ocean; to enter Canada is a matter of being silently swallowed by an alien continent” (11). Surely this difference signifies a terrifying unknowability to Canadian identity, although he later concludes this conversation by suggesting that “[t]he Canadian genius for compromise is reflected in the existence of Canada itself” (12). Ultimately, however, Frye argues the defining quality of Canada “is the position of the frontier in the Canadian imagination” (12). Frye explains that “[t]he frontier was primarily what separated the Canadian, physically or mentally, from Great Britain, from the United States, and even more important, from other Canadian communities” (13). In Frye’s summation, Canadians and Canadian literature were and would continue to be characterized by “what we may provisionally call a garrison mentality” (14). According to Frye “[t]he real terror comes when the individual feels himself becoming an individual, pulling away from the group, losing the sense of driving power that the group gives him, aware of a conflict within himself far subtler than the struggle of morality against evil” (15). It is in this context Frye postulates that it becomes easier to build more garrisons; the result is that this blocks the creative development of the nation and stymies the artist with “a dominating herd-mind in which nothing original can grow” (15).
Margaret Atwood’s own writing would belie this easy summation, and her own theory of Canadian literature would respond to Frye’s dismal proclamation about the climate of Canadian creativity. Writing in 1972, Atwood notes in Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature that “[u]ntil recently, reading Canadian literature has been for me and for everyone else who did it a personal interest, since it was not taught, required or even mentioned (except with derision) in the public sphere” (20). Certainly Frye’s contentions about the creative climate of Canada paints a picture of an environment hostile to innovation and individual talent—an environment that brings attention, like Atwood suggests, to the national literature through derision.
Atwood sets out to respond to this proclamation and, in the process, answer two questions in her work: “What’s Canadian about Canadian literature, and why should we be bothered” (20–21)? Without a doubt both these questions are pertinent to this study, although Atwood’s answer forms only a portion of the literary/critical history of Canadian literature and, perhaps, something of a response to Frye. Atwood contends that the study of Canadian literature “ought to be comparative” (23), going on to suggest that “it is by contrast that distinctive patterns show up most strongly” (23) and that “[t]o know ourselves, we must know our own literature; to know ourselves accurately, we need to know it as a part of literature as a whole” (23).
The necessity of the comparative component of knowing the self and the literature of the nation in relation to other nationalities and literatures applies to the study I am here undertaking. However, Atwood does not include Asian literature or culture in her study and refers primarily to comparing the literature of Canada to that of the Anglo-American tradition. Atwood goes on to respond specifically to Frye’s suggestion that knowing the self is at least in part “the same as the answer to another question: ‘Where is here’” (23)? The claim for the distinctiveness of Canadian literature and the Canadian experience are in part to be found in the answers to these questions. According to Atwood and echoing Frye, “Canada is an unknown territory for the people who live in it” (24) and “[w]hat a lost person needs is a map of the territory” (24). What Atwood provides is a guide and a “central symbol for Canada” (25) in the trope of survival. Atwood charts this central symbol of survival in the literature of English and French Canada from the early literature that deals with physical survival to the literature of the 1970s that deals with what Atwood characterizes as “spiritual survival” (26).
Robert Kroetsch, in “Disunity as Unity: A Canadian Strategy” (1989), observes, “The shared story . . . has traditionally been basic to nationhood” (61), yet he contends that “Canadians cannot agree on what their meta-narrative is” and that “this very falling-apart of our story is what holds our story together” (61). Referring to Yeats’ observation that “the centre does not hold” (62) Kroetsch argues that “[i]t was this very decentering that gave a new energy to countries like Canada” (62). Further, “Canada is supremely a country of margins, beginning from the literal way in which almost every city borders on a wilderness” (62). Returning to the earlier discussions of Grant and Frye, Kroetsch also suggests that “[w]e define ourselves, often, as the cliché has it, by explaining to Americans that we aren’t British, to the British that we aren’t Americans” (66); similarly, he echoes Atwood’s trope of survival when he notes, “[W]e survive by working with a low level of self-definition and national definition” (66). By highlighting what he sees as a lack of a single metanarrative to sum up the diversity of Canadians and the multiplicity of definitions of Canadians, Kroetsch identifies a key to understanding Canadian culture. He notes that “[w]e maintain ethnic customs long after they’ve disappeared in the country of origin” (66) and “[i]n Canadian writing there is little sense of a privileged self at the centre” (66). According to Kroetsch, the “archetypal Canadian” is characterized “by refusing to become a Canadian” (67).
I draw attention to these Canadian writers and critics because they highlight a number of the qualities that make Canada and Canadians distinctive; some or all of these characteristics contribute to the interactions and formations of relationships with and between Canadian writers and their travel to and writing about China, Japan, and India and, more broadly, to the subject of this study. Certainly many Canadian writers, particularly in their travels in China, Japan, and India, define themselves and their reactions to places and people—and thus promote their ideas about different cultures—with and against British and American norms, identities, and writing. Many Canadian writers also take the opportunity in their writing to promote various forms of Canadian nationalism.
The question that emerges is how these definitions of nationhood and nationalism that emerge in the writing about the East or reflecting the Eastern influence reinforce or support the theories of nationhood put forth by Grant, Frye, Atwood, and Kroetsch and if and how these theories work alongside the histories and stories of Asian Canadians? Certainly Atwood’s concept of survival could apply to the struggles for and emergence of an Asian Canadian presence in the literature; however, this is not in fact articulated as part of her study. Even Frye’s notion of a “garrison mentality,” constructed by Canadians to protect them from the Indigenous inhabitants and the wilderness, could arguably be seen as re-enacted in the position Canada eventually took toward immigrants from Asia and Asian Canadians. Extending this idea further, Canadians arguably used a form of garrison to incarcerate Japanese Canadians when they saw them as a threat; even before this, the federal government enacted laws to keep out Chinese, Japanese, and South Asian immigrants, thus forming a sort of national garrison around a predominantly white national identity. Certainly Kroetsch’s theory allows for a multiplicity of narratives of nationhood: it undermines the overdetermined and totalizing meta-narratives of nationhood that require an essentially white-settler history and, thus, allows for the margins and marginalized identities to become part of the fabric of nationhood.
Smaro Kamboureli, however, in the introduction to the first edition of Making a Difference: Canadian Multicultural Literature in English (2007), questions this idea of marginalization: “if we consider these authors in the various contexts that have produced their writing, it becomes apparent that ‘marginalization’, from an individual as well as a collective perspective, is impossible to define in any stable way” (xix). Thus, a clear articulation of the stories of nationhood that includes Asian presence from and before confederation requires not only a re-examination of the history and stories that are excluded in the nationalisms articulated by the founding and establishment Canadian scholars but also a rewriting of the story of nation to include Asian stories and origins as part of the emergence of Canada as a nation. Rather than relegating Asian Canadian presence to the “impossible to define” (Kamboureli xix) margins, this study intends to put the Asian influence on Canadian nation-building at the centre. Scholars such as Arun Mukherjee contend that “Canadian nationalism, for us non-whites, is a racist ideology that has branded us un-Canadian by acts of omission and commission” (“Canadian Nationalism” 89). A number of recent writers and scholars attempt to address the “acts of omission and commission” in the white-settler-culture, nation-building narrative, including Roy Miki and Smaro Kamboureli, and what follows will examine their perspectives.
This study intends to take the story of Canada back to the beginnings of Asian immigration and weave together the history of Canada with the emergence of the history and identities of Asian Canadians as part of the story of the historical creation of a Canadian national identity. Further, this study will emphasize that the influence of Asia on the formation of Canadian identity, culture, and literature has been a part of the story from the very beginnings of the nation—not just from within, but also from without. In this case I am referring to the Canadians who travelled to Asia and brought back stories, artifacts, religious experiences, and culture to their communities in Canada, as well as to the influence on Canadians from Asians living in Canada and becoming Canadians. I am also referring to the circulation of ideas about Asia that came from literature, art, and artifacts that were brought into the nation and into individual homes, museums, and public places through missionary activities, trade, and travel, and the impact of Asian culture on Canada through the impact of art and ideas from Asia. As the editors of ReCalling Early Canada: Reading the Political in Literary and Cultural Production (2005) note, “[E]arly Canadian artifacts offer particularly revealing sites in which it is possible to trace the gains and losses of the imposition of the nation—with its demands of cohesion and homogeneity—upon the many and various preoccupations of artists, writers, and cultural commentators” (Blair, Coleman, Higginson, York xxvii). An examination of the “early Canadian artifacts” thus shows the traces of the Asian influence and can contribute to “counteract[ing] the racist nationalist discourse of two founding nations” (Mukherjee, “Canadian Nationalism” 82) that would erase the presence of Asian Canadians from the otherwise homogenizing original nation-building story. This offers the possibility of both recuperating and reconfiguring the nation-building narrative to show a story of exchange and influence from Asia rather than merely erasing the differences or showing the racism of the early stories of nationhood.
Canadian Nationalism
The question of what constitutes Canadian identity and the closely related question of what represents a Canadian literary tradition and history have been at the core of the activities of Canadian literary critics and writers since the nascence of the Canadian nation with, and even before, confederation in 1867. In the early pre- and post-confederation years, a number of poets and writers were searching for Canadian topics and a poetry that could be celebrated as uniquely Canadian. Satirizing this struggle in the April 27, 1929 issue of the McGill Fortnightly Review, Montreal poet and critic F. R. Scott (1899–1985) published his much-quoted poetic critique of the Canadian Authors’ Association, an organization founded in 1921 “to promote the interests of Canadian writers” (Bentley 3). “The Canadian Authors Meet” refers back to the poets collectively known as the Confederation poets, “[Bliss] Carman, [Archibald] Lampman, [Sir Charles G. D.] Roberts, [William Wilfred] Campbell, [Duncan Campbell] Scott” (line 10). The poem concludes by summing up the state of establishment Canadian poetry as follows: “O Canada, O Canada, Oh can / A day go by without new authors springing / To paint the native maple, and to plan / More ways to set the selfsame welkin ringing?” (lines 21–24). Against this background of nationalist fervour encapsulated by declarations of “O Canada” and the “native maple,” F. R. Scott and other modernist poets were attempting to develop and define a more rigorous, experimental, and particularly international poetry—a poetry A. J. M. Smith (1902–1980) would call “cosmopolitan” in the Preface to the 1943 anthology The Book of Canadian Poetry (1943; rev. 1948, 1957). The modernist poetic and political opposition to the rhetoric of the local and national obsessions that had kept the “selfsame welkin ringing” for the first fifty years of Canadian literary history marked a shift in Canadian literature and culture.
While the above is a standard introduction to Canadian nationalist topics and values and the cosmopolitan perspective, as introduced by male critics/poets such as A. J. M. Smith and F. R. Scott, there also exists a parallel and somewhat different poetic history that chronicles not the “maple leaf forever,” but subtle expressions of Eastern influence and sensibility. The all-but-forgotten Canadian modernist poet Louise Morey Bowman (1882–1944), hailed in her day by American modernist poets, questions colonial presence in India in poems such as “Garden in Agra,” which she begins by asking, “Cool-blossomed English garden! What wide fate / Set you in burning breathless India?” (lines 1–2). The poem was originally published in Canadian Author’s Association Poetry Year Book 1926–1927 and republished by Wanda Campbell as part of her early Canadian women’s poetry recovery project in Hidden Rooms (2000). Bowman likewise works in the Japanese form of Hokku, showing—like many of the American modernist poets, and well ahead of her male Canadian modernist counterparts—the influence of Japanese poetics on the sparseness and form of modernist poetry. Part of Dream Tapestries (1924), “Twelve Hokku on a Canadian Theme” and “Life Sequence (In the Hokku Manner)” are republished in Campbell’s Hidden Rooms as early examples of the Japanese influence on Canadian women’s poetry. Bowman, among others, illustrates how women’s voices and the influence of the East on Canadian modernism and the Canadian literary tradition have been, as Campbell’s title clearly shows, hidden and excluded from Canadian history and the Canadian literary canon. This book is dedicated to the study of Canadian prose fiction and non-fiction. However, like Wanda Campbell’s anthology of early Canadian women’s poetry, this project is an attempt to recover women’s voices, and particularly those Canadian women influenced by Japan, India, and China.
The study of Canadian literature as a field and the efforts to define Canadian nationalism emerged together in the 1960s, with contributions by a number of leading writers and critics, including most famously George Grant, Northrop Frye, Margaret Atwood, and Robert Kroetsch. While I will be outlining their theories of Canadian nationalism—particularly for a readership in Asia, who may not be familiar with their ideas—I will intersperse and conclude this survey by questioning the ways in which the ideas about nationhood promoted by these writers and thinkers are complicated or reinforced by the history and literature relating to Asian Canadian identity.
In 1965, nearly a hundred years after confederation, George Grant would ask “can the disappearance of an unimportant nation be worthy of serious grief?” (3). In his “Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism” Grant names many of the historical characteristics to which Canada looked in defining its collective identity. These qualities include, most succinctly “[t]he inherited determinism not to be Americans” (6) and allegiance to the British Crown as expressing “a continuing loyalty to the state” (6). Canada, writes Grant, was based on the “inchoate desire to build . . . a society with a greater sense of order and restraint than freedom-loving republicanism would allow” (6). Grant argues that “Canada’s disappearance was a matter of necessity” (4) and further that “[t]he aspirations of progress have made Canada redundant” (4). However, in the years of early nationhood (defined in this study as 1867–1929), Canada, in Grant’s estimation, was still attempting to preserve aspects of the British Crown in order to “distinguish [Canada] from the United States” (7). This summation undoubtedly explains aspects of early Canadian identity and culture. But in the case of writers such as Sara Jeannette Duncan, while connections to Britain existed in a limited sense, Canadian identity was expressed chiefly in setting itself apart from both the British and the American influences. This can be widely observed in early Canadian literature. However, Grant is not writing about or referring to the literature of early Canada; rather, his thesis is that “[t]he purpose of life is consumption” (7). When looking at early and contemporary Canada from an economic perspective, Grant’s estimations hold some truth. Canada’s economic ties with Britain in the nineteenth century were a necessary reality, just as, in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, trade with the United States and participation in global corporations is part of the Canadian and global economy. However, while the early Canadian women writers do express some relationship to Britain, chiefly through trade, the literature expresses a stronger determination to define Canadian identity as different from both British and American identity.
Northrop Frye, writing in the same year as George Grant, in his “Conclusion to A Literary History of Canada” (ed. Carl F. Klinck 1965) in referring to the literary history of Canada, settles on a single metanarrative for Canada as a nation. Of further importance to this study, Frye connects Canadian identity formation to the East. He writes, “Canada began as an obstacle, blocking the way to the treasures of the East, to be explored only in the hope of finding a passage through it. English Canada continued to be that long after what is now the United States had become a defined part of the Western world” (10). While Frye goes on to echo Grant’s determination of Canada as defined partly in opposition to the United States and partly through its alignment with the values and history of Britain, Frye does not see Canada as being lost to global trade or the American market economy. Rather, Frye develops the difference between Canada and the United States by suggesting that “[t]o enter the United States is a matter of crossing an ocean; to enter Canada is a matter of being silently swallowed by an alien continent” (11). Surely this difference signifies a terrifying unknowability to Canadian identity, although he later concludes this conversation by suggesting that “[t]he Canadian genius for compromise is reflected in the existence of Canada itself” (12). Ultimately, however, Frye argues the defining quality of Canada “is the position of the frontier in the Canadian imagination” (12). Frye explains that “[t]he frontier was primarily what separated the Canadian, physically or mentally, from Great Britain, from the United States, and even more important, from other Canadian communities” (13). In Frye’s summation, Canadians and Canadian literature were and would continue to be characterized by “what we may provisionally call a garrison mentality” (14). According to Frye “[t]he real terror comes when the individual feels himself becoming an individual, pulling away from the group, losing the sense of driving power that the group gives him, aware of a conflict within himself far subtler than the struggle of morality against evil” (15). It is in this context Frye postulates that it becomes easier to build more garrisons; the result is that this blocks the creative development of the nation and stymies the artist with “a dominating herd-mind in which nothing original can grow” (15).
Margaret Atwood’s own writing would belie this easy summation, and her own theory of Canadian literature would respond to Frye’s dismal proclamation about the climate of Canadian creativity. Writing in 1972, Atwood notes in Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature that “[u]ntil recently, reading Canadian literature has been for me and for everyone else who did it a personal interest, since it was not taught, required or even mentioned (except with derision) in the public sphere” (20). Certainly Frye’s contentions about the creative climate of Canada paints a picture of an environment hostile to innovation and individual talent—an environment that brings attention, like Atwood suggests, to the national literature through derision.
Atwood sets out to respond to this proclamation and, in the process, answer two questions in her work: “What’s Canadian about Canadian literature, and why should we be bothered” (20–21)? Without a doubt both these questions are pertinent to this study, although Atwood’s answer forms only a portion of the literary/critical history of Canadian literature and, perhaps, something of a response to Frye. Atwood contends that the study of Canadian literature “ought to be comparative” (23), going on to suggest that “it is by contrast that distinctive patterns show up most strongly” (23) and that “[t]o know ourselves, we must know our own literature; to know ourselves accurately, we need to know it as a part of literature as a whole” (23).
The necessity of the comparative component of knowing the self and the literature of the nation in relation to other nationalities and literatures applies to the study I am here undertaking. However, Atwood does not include Asian literature or culture in her study and refers primarily to comparing the literature of Canada to that of the Anglo-American tradition. Atwood goes on to respond specifically to Frye’s suggestion that knowing the self is at least in part “the same as the answer to another question: ‘Where is here’” (23)? The claim for the distinctiveness of Canadian literature and the Canadian experience are in part to be found in the answers to these questions. According to Atwood and echoing Frye, “Canada is an unknown territory for the people who live in it” (24) and “[w]hat a lost person needs is a map of the territory” (24). What Atwood provides is a guide and a “central symbol for Canada” (25) in the trope of survival. Atwood charts this central symbol of survival in the literature of English and French Canada from the early literature that deals with physical survival to the literature of the 1970s that deals with what Atwood characterizes as “spiritual survival” (26).
Robert Kroetsch, in “Disunity as Unity: A Canadian Strategy” (1989), observes, “The shared story . . . has traditionally been basic to nationhood” (61), yet he contends that “Canadians cannot agree on what their meta-narrative is” and that “this very falling-apart of our story is what holds our story together” (61). Referring to Yeats’ observation that “the centre does not hold” (62) Kroetsch argues that “[i]t was this very decentering that gave a new energy to countries like Canada” (62). Further, “Canada is supremely a country of margins, beginning from the literal way in which almost every city borders on a wilderness” (62). Returning to the earlier discussions of Grant and Frye, Kroetsch also suggests that “[w]e define ourselves, often, as the cliché has it, by explaining to Americans that we aren’t British, to the British that we aren’t Americans” (66); similarly, he echoes Atwood’s trope of survival when he notes, “[W]e survive by working with a low level of self-definition and national definition” (66). By highlighting what he sees as a lack of a single metanarrative to sum up the diversity of Canadians and the multiplicity of definitions of Canadians, Kroetsch identifies a key to understanding Canadian culture. He notes that “[w]e maintain ethnic customs long after they’ve disappeared in the country of origin” (66) and “[i]n Canadian writing there is little sense of a privileged self at the centre” (66). According to Kroetsch, the “archetypal Canadian” is characterized “by refusing to become a Canadian” (67).
I draw attention to these Canadian writers and critics because they highlight a number of the qualities that make Canada and Canadians distinctive; some or all of these characteristics contribute to the interactions and formations of relationships with and between Canadian writers and their travel to and writing about China, Japan, and India and, more broadly, to the subject of this study. Certainly many Canadian writers, particularly in their travels in China, Japan, and India, define themselves and their reactions to places and people—and thus promote their ideas about different cultures—with and against British and American norms, identities, and writing. Many Canadian writers also take the opportunity in their writing to promote various forms of Canadian nationalism.
The question that emerges is how these definitions of nationhood and nationalism that emerge in the writing about the East or reflecting the Eastern influence reinforce or support the theories of nationhood put forth by Grant, Frye, Atwood, and Kroetsch and if and how these theories work alongside the histories and stories of Asian Canadians? Certainly Atwood’s concept of survival could apply to the struggles for and emergence of an Asian Canadian presence in the literature; however, this is not in fact articulated as part of her study. Even Frye’s notion of a “garrison mentality,” constructed by Canadians to protect them from the Indigenous inhabitants and the wilderness, could arguably be seen as re-enacted in the position Canada eventually took toward immigrants from Asia and Asian Canadians. Extending this idea further, Canadians arguably used a form of garrison to incarcerate Japanese Canadians when they saw them as a threat; even before this, the federal government enacted laws to keep out Chinese, Japanese, and South Asian immigrants, thus forming a sort of national garrison around a predominantly white national identity. Certainly Kroetsch’s theory allows for a multiplicity of narratives of nationhood: it undermines the overdetermined and totalizing meta-narratives of nationhood that require an essentially white-settler history and, thus, allows for the margins and marginalized identities to become part of the fabric of nationhood.
Smaro Kamboureli, however, in the introduction to the first edition of Making a Difference: Canadian Multicultural Literature in English (2007), questions this idea of marginalization: “if we consider these authors in the various contexts that have produced their writing, it becomes apparent that ‘marginalization’, from an individual as well as a collective perspective, is impossible to define in any stable way” (xix). Thus, a clear articulation of the stories of nationhood that includes Asian presence from and before confederation requires not only a re-examination of the history and stories that are excluded in the nationalisms articulated by the founding and establishment Canadian scholars but also a rewriting of the story of nation to include Asian stories and origins as part of the emergence of Canada as a nation. Rather than relegating Asian Canadian presence to the “impossible to define” (Kamboureli xix) margins, this study intends to put the Asian influence on Canadian nation-building at the centre. Scholars such as Arun Mukherjee contend that “Canadian nationalism, for us non-whites, is a racist ideology that has branded us un-Canadian by acts of omission and commission” (“Canadian Nationalism” 89). A number of recent writers and scholars attempt to address the “acts of omission and commission” in the white-settler-culture, nation-building narrative, including Roy Miki and Smaro Kamboureli, and what follows will examine their perspectives.
This study intends to take the story of Canada back to the beginnings of Asian immigration and weave together the history of Canada with the emergence of the history and identities of Asian Canadians as part of the story of the historical creation of a Canadian national identity. Further, this study will emphasize that the influence of Asia on the formation of Canadian identity, culture, and literature has been a part of the story from the very beginnings of the nation—not just from within, but also from without. In this case I am referring to the Canadians who travelled to Asia and brought back stories, artifacts, religious experiences, and culture to their communities in Canada, as well as to the influence on Canadians from Asians living in Canada and becoming Canadians. I am also referring to the circulation of ideas about Asia that came from literature, art, and artifacts that were brought into the nation and into individual homes, museums, and public places through missionary activities, trade, and travel, and the impact of Asian culture on Canada through the impact of art and ideas from Asia. As the editors of ReCalling Early Canada: Reading the Political in Literary and Cultural Production (2005) note, “[E]arly Canadian artifacts offer particularly revealing sites in which it is possible to trace the gains and losses of the imposition of the nation—with its demands of cohesion and homogeneity—upon the many and various preoccupations of artists, writers, and cultural commentators” (Blair, Coleman, Higginson, York xxvii). An examination of the “early Canadian artifacts” thus shows the traces of the Asian influence and can contribute to “counteract[ing] the racist nationalist discourse of two founding nations” (Mukherjee, “Canadian Nationalism” 82) that would erase the presence of Asian Canadians from the otherwise homogenizing original nation-building story. This offers the possibility of both recuperating and reconfiguring the nation-building narrative to show a story of exchange and influence from Asia rather than merely erasing the differences or showing the racism of the early stories of nationhood.
圖書試讀
用戶評價
评分
這本書的名字《Eastern Encounters：Canadian Women’s Writing about the East, 1867-1929》，光是讀起來就有一種古典而又引人入勝的韻味。我腦海中浮現齣的畫麵是，在那個火車和蒸汽輪船是主要交通工具的時代，加拿大女性作傢們，她們的目光越過瞭廣袤的國土，投嚮瞭那片充滿異域風情的“東方”。我好奇的是，她們筆下的“東方”究竟是怎樣一番景象？是否是色彩斑斕的市集，悠揚的絲竹之聲，還是古老神秘的寺廟？抑或是，她們所麵對的“東方”，更多的是一種文化上的符號，一種被當時西方世界建構齣來的想象？1867年到1929年，這個時期加拿大本身也在經曆著快速的社會變革和身份認同的重塑。我猜測，這些女性作傢在書寫“東方”時，她們的個人經曆、社會背景，以及作為加拿大女性的身份，都會深刻地影響她們的創作。這本書是否會深入探討，她們是如何在這種跨文化的書寫中，反思自身的文化背景，甚至是在某種程度上，與她們所處的父權社會進行對話？我特彆期待能看到一些具體的作品分析，瞭解她們在語言運用、敘事結構、人物塑造等方麵，是如何將“東方”的元素融入加拿大文學的傳統之中，又或者，是如何挑戰和顛覆瞭這些傳統。這本書的名字本身就暗示著一種“相遇”的過程，我希望書中能夠展現齣這種相遇的多樣性和復雜性，而不僅僅是簡單的異域描繪。
评分這本書的名字聽起來就充滿瞭吸引力：《Eastern Encounters：Canadian Women’s Writing about the East, 1867-1929》。光是這個書名，就讓我對內容充滿瞭好奇和期待。首先，"Eastern Encounters" 這個詞組本身就暗示著一種跨越地理和文化的相遇，可能是旅途中的驚奇，也可能是觀念上的碰撞。而“Canadian Women’s Writing”則將焦點鎖定在加拿大女性作傢的視角，這本身就非常有意義。在那個特定的曆史時期（1867-1929），加拿大作為一個年輕的國傢，其女性在文學創作中的聲音可能尚未被充分關注和研究。她們筆下的“East”，又是指哪個“East”呢？是遙遠的東方，還是加拿大自身東部的某些地域，亦或是某種象徵性的“東方主義”的視角？這種模糊性反而激發瞭我的想象，我迫不及待地想知道，這些女性作傢是如何通過她們的文字，來理解、描繪、甚至挑戰當時社會對“東方”的刻闆印象的。她們的“邂逅”是怎樣的？是積極的探索，還是帶有某種殖民主義的印記？我想，這本書的價值就在於它可能為我們揭示一段被忽視的文學史，讓我們得以窺見加拿大女性在塑造國傢文化認同過程中所扮演的重要角色，尤其是在她們與“東方”的復雜關係中。我尤其好奇，在那個時代，女性作傢在麵對“東方”時，其視角與男性作傢會有何不同？她們的寫作是否更多地關注人性的細膩情感，還是對異域風情的浪漫化想象？
评分對於《Eastern Encounters：Canadian Women’s Writing about the East, 1867-1929》這本書，我最先聯想到的畫麵是維多利亞時代的女性，她們或許身著長裙，手持羽毛筆，在煤油燈下，將腦海中那些關於遙遠東方的奇幻景象，或是旅途中所見所聞，一絲不苟地記錄在泛黃的紙頁上。1867年至1929年，這段跨度相當大的時間，恰好經曆瞭加拿大聯邦的誕生及其早期發展，同時也是西方世界對東方世界充滿神秘感和探索欲的時期。我設想，這些加拿大女性作傢，她們的“東方”體驗可能源自多種途徑：或是親身經曆的遠行，比如隨同外交官或商人丈夫前往亞洲；抑或是通過閱讀、聽聞，以及當時流行的旅行文學和博物館展品所構建的想象。我特彆感興趣的是，她們的筆觸是否會流露齣那個時代女性普遍的細膩和敏感？她們的作品中，是否會穿插對傢庭、婚姻、社會地位的考量，而這些考量又如何與她們對“東方”的描繪交織在一起？這本書所涵蓋的“East”究竟有多廣闊？是指亞洲大陸，還是也包含其他地域？而且，這些女性作傢，她們的身份背景是否也多樣化？是否有原住民女性的視角，或者來自不同族裔的女性？我希望這本書能夠提供一些鮮活的案例，讓我們得以瞭解，在那個尚未完全擺脫殖民主義陰影的時代，加拿大女性是如何在異國情調和文化差異的碰撞中，書寫屬於她們自己的“東方故事”，並在這個過程中，如何開始構建自己的文學聲音和身份認同。
评分《Eastern Encounters：Canadian Women’s Writing about the East, 1867-1929》——這個書名本身就帶著一種曆史的厚重感和文化探索的野心。我腦海中首先浮現的是，在那個信息相對閉塞但又充滿著對外探索欲望的時代，加拿大女性作傢們是如何通過文字，來描繪她們心中的“東方”。1867年，加拿大聯邦成立，國傢認同的建構正是方興未艾。而1929年，二戰的陰影尚未完全籠罩，但世界格局已然開始悄然改變。在這段重要的曆史時期，女性文學的聲音往往容易被主流敘事所淹沒。因此，這本書聚焦於“Canadian Women’s Writing about the East”這一特定主題，顯得尤為珍貴。我猜測，這些女性作傢筆下的“East”，可能包含著她們的親身經曆、道聽途說，甚至是她們通過閱讀西方文獻所構建的想象。她們的視角，與同時期的男性作傢會有何不同？她們的作品中，是否會流露齣更多對當地人民生活、情感的關懷，還是更多地停留在對異域風情的獵奇式描繪？我期待這本書能夠揭示，這些女性作傢是如何在她們的創作中，融入瞭加拿大自身的曆史進程，又是如何在“東方”的視角下，反思和定義她們作為加拿大女性的身份。這種“遭遇”，是積極的文化交流，還是帶有時代的局限性？我希望能在這本書中找到答案，瞭解這段被埋藏的文學史。
评分當我看到《Eastern Encounters：Canadian Women’s Writing about the East, 1867-1929》這個書名時，我的腦海裏立刻湧現齣一幅幅畫麵：身著長袍的異域女子，古老的東方建築，以及身處其中的加拿大女性身影。1867年至1929年，這是一個動蕩而又充滿變革的年代，加拿大作為一個年輕的國傢，正在積極地塑造自己的文化麵貌。而“東方”對於那個時代的加拿大人來說，無疑是一個充滿神秘色彩和無限遐想的詞匯。這本書以“加拿大女性作傢”為切入點，來探討她們對“東方”的描繪，這本身就極具價值。我設想，這些女性作傢，她們的“東方”體驗可能來源多樣，或是隨同傢人遠渡重洋，親身經曆異域風情；抑或是通過閱讀、展覽，在想象中構建齣一個“東方世界”。我最感興趣的是，她們的筆觸會呈現齣怎樣的獨特性？是否會更加細膩地展現人與人之間的情感交流，對異域文化的理解和共鳴？或者，她們的作品中是否會隱含著那個時代女性所麵臨的社會壓力和身份焦慮，而這種焦慮又如何投射到她們對“東方”的描繪之中？這本書或許能夠為我們揭示一段不為人知的文學史，讓我們得以一窺加拿大女性在早期文學創作中，是如何通過“東方”的意象，來錶達她們的所思所感，並在這個過程中，為加拿大文學增添獨特的色彩。
相關圖書
本站所有內容均為互聯網搜尋引擎提供的公開搜索信息，本站不存儲任何數據與內容，任何內容與數據均與本站無關，如有需要請聯繫相關搜索引擎包括但不限於百度，google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 ttbooks.qciss.net All Rights Reserved. 小特书站 版權所有