PN Review Print and Online Poetry Magazine
Most Read... Rebecca WattsThe Cult of the Noble Amateur
(PN Review 239)
Mark FordLetters And So It Goes
Letters from Young Mr Grace
(aka John Ashbery)

(PN Review 239)
Henry Kingon Toby Martinez de las Rivas
(PN Review 244)
Eavan BolandA Lyric Voice at Bay
(PN Review 121)
Vahni CapildeoOn Judging Prizes, & Reading More than Six Really Good Books
(PN Review 237)
Jamie OsbornIn conversation with Sasha Dugdale
(PN Review 240)
Poems Articles Interviews Reports Reviews Contributors
Monthly Carcanet Books
Gratis Ad 1
Next Issue Helene Cixous We Defy Augury Carola Luther From ‘Letter to Rasool’ Sarah Rothenberg Ashberyana Jena Schmidt The Many-Faced Lola Ridge Helen Tookey Almost Drowning

This report is taken from PN Review 87, Volume 19 Number 1, September - October 1992.

Letter From Canada:Whose Voice is it, Anyway? Roger Burford Mason

Peace-keepers have taken up their positions, and an armistice has been signed in Canada's long-running literary debate about the appropriation of voice.

The debate, which had smouldered for several years, concerned the thorny notion of who could write what, about whom, and more specifically, whether white, Anglo-Saxon, usually male, writers could be permitted to make imaginative use of the experience, history, culture and ideas of other races.

Though many writers of all colours and ethnic backgrounds had been uneasy about the way white writers 'appropriated' the voices of other experience (a tactic which non-white writers never, apparently, espoused in any form) the debate burst into life when the distinguished white, Mennonite writer and University of Alberta profesor, Rudy Wiebe, took exception to the use W.P. Kinsella made of Canadian Indian history and culture in his novels and short stories.

According to Wiebe, Kinsella - whose best-selling novel, Shoeless Joe, was made into the film, Field of Dreams - not only made cynical use of Indian history and culture in his novels and short stories about the Indians of the fictional Hobema reserve, but rather abused that history and culture, winning literary praise, and financial success, by holding Indians and their way of life up to ridicule and contempt.

He was not, Wiebe's criticism suggested, entitled to imagine nor imaginatively to portray, aspects of human experience which he had not directly experienced. He was engaging in cultural imperialism.

Of course ...


Searching, please wait... animated waiting image