Welcome to the 169th edition of SHuSH, the official newsletter of The Sutherland House Inc. If you’re new here, hit the button: PROGRAMMING NOTE — SHUSH WILL BE ON HIATUS NEXT WEEK, RETURNING THE WEEK FOLLOWING. The good people at Publishers Lunch, the best aggregator of news about US book publishing, have aggregated the complete trial record of US v Penguin Random House into a single volume and made it available for sale as an ebook.
I would refer David Lemon to Arnold Bennett's "Literary Taste: How to Form it" (1909) which argues persuasively that the interestingness of non-fiction literature depends almost entirely on the passion the writer brings to his subject matter, rather than the subject matter itself. As an example, he contrasts Macaulay's History of England, in which the words virtually fly off the page , to Macaulay's history of the Roman Empire, which is almost undreadably dull.
It seems inconsistent to say that colonialism and racism are interesting in the US but not in Canada. It's not clear whether Canadian historians are faulted for being like or unlike the American ones. And it's parochial to see no international history in Canadian history. Canada is a long reflection upon the grandiose awfulness of American violence and its implications for everyone else: some fleeing/abhorring it, some admiring/emulating it, some reasoning strategically with it. Why is that not interesting? Do you skip to the fight scenes in books or the "biff" and "bam" scenes in Batman? In the end, how would you know whether or not Canadian historians were writing interesting books? (Hint: read French-language newspapers which actually review them.)
I would refer David Lemon to Arnold Bennett's "Literary Taste: How to Form it" (1909) which argues persuasively that the interestingness of non-fiction literature depends almost entirely on the passion the writer brings to his subject matter, rather than the subject matter itself. As an example, he contrasts Macaulay's History of England, in which the words virtually fly off the page , to Macaulay's history of the Roman Empire, which is almost undreadably dull.
What started as a comment on that scattershot screed by David Lemon turned into a blog post. Thanks, Ken. https://kenmcgoogan.com/2022/10/14/answering-a-screed-on-canadian-nonfiction/
Just a note to say that I really appreciate your insights into the North American publishing industry!
It seems inconsistent to say that colonialism and racism are interesting in the US but not in Canada. It's not clear whether Canadian historians are faulted for being like or unlike the American ones. And it's parochial to see no international history in Canadian history. Canada is a long reflection upon the grandiose awfulness of American violence and its implications for everyone else: some fleeing/abhorring it, some admiring/emulating it, some reasoning strategically with it. Why is that not interesting? Do you skip to the fight scenes in books or the "biff" and "bam" scenes in Batman? In the end, how would you know whether or not Canadian historians were writing interesting books? (Hint: read French-language newspapers which actually review them.)