Here is David Gilmour, in the Saturday (September 18) Globe reviewing the new book Mysteries by Robert McGill:
There are only two people who really care about a book review, the critic who wants to sound smart and the writer who doesn't want to be wounded in a public forum. Understandable, on both sides. For the rest of the people, let's be candid, it's essentially fish wrap, albeit interesting fish wrap.
It is also true, I think, that for a young Canadian writer, there is no review more affecting, perhaps ever, than the review of his first novel in The Globe and Mail. Other papers can say what they like, The Globe is the review of record, and writers know it.
Essay Question: In his recent book review, David Gilmour contends that "there is no review more affecting, perhaps ever, than the review of his first novel in The Globe and Mail." Do you agree or disagree? Provide evidence for your opinion, and wherever possible, show your work. Use the back of this blog if more space is required.
On a somewhat related note, here is a sole sentence from Prairie Fire’s recent "please subscribe" letter:
The literary magazine is the nursery of contemporary Canadian writing.
Lest you think me a snit for selecting this sentence, it was both italicized and printed in red ink in the letter. It’s not entrapment when I select a sentence that was already highlighted. Clearly, the folks at Prairie Fire were proud of that turn of phrase. As such, I’m going to put that phrase on a T-shirt posthaste. I mean, here it is again:
The literary magazine is the nursery of contemporary Canadian writing.
The next time anyone asks about the role of literary journals in the CanLit ecosystem, I want you to answer:
The literary magazine is the nursery of contemporary Canadian writing.
I’ve heard lit-journals described as a "farm team," but never a nursery. Who, then, are the parents of Canadian contemporary writing? And why are they so abusive and neglectful?
