Last week's topic on the Radio-France Culture program "La Fabrique de l'Histoire" was the history of bookselling in France. On Wednesday's show, the panel was a group of historians who have studied bookselling and booksellers since the 19th century. Two had studied the late twentieth century.
For the host of the show and his guests, talking about their subject included not only the findings and information that came out of the research, but explaining how the researchers got there. The host asked the guests how they went about gathering their information on book selling and publishing and why they chose personal interviews as their starting point. They might instead have gone looking for documents with numbers of books sold and revenues, dates when firms were established, or reports of lawsuits. There ensued a discussion of the role of oral history as a method and the meanings and importance the booksellers gave to the fact of being interviewed, plus the booksellers’narrative construction of their interviews.
(In case you’re interested, the researchers were following a set of procedures that have become common in the last 20 years or so. To judge by France Culture's history programs, oral history has become quite popular and valued. Starting also about 20 years ago, government ministers submit to recorded oral history interviews for the national archives as a sort of exit interview when they leave office. There's lots of recording going on nowadays. People are doing oral history on the social history of cooking and trains and the postal service.)
The interest in methods might be there because this is a history program, and the panelists are historians, but I think it is also because French education prizes critical analysis very highly and trains people in it. Having received this training, any group of educated French people are going to look at not just what the booksellers said but how they--and the researchers who report it--shaped their stories. Everyone understands that a story told depends on a set of procedures and self-definitions and self-understandings that should also be told.
The following link to a lesson on textual analysis shows the kind of training students get early on. http://www.site-magister.com/volrous.htm The intended audience is students preparing for the baccalauréat exam, which is the qualifying exam for university entrance, and also for the tougher entrance exams into the Grandes Ecoles. These are essay exams, no multiple choice. As an example of how candidates should analyze texts, the teacher compares two texts on the the same topic--"Which is to be valued, nature or culture?"--by Voltaire and Rousseau. (The two texts come from a pretty famous exchange between V and R. ) He gives detailed attention to the speaking "I" and the "you" to whom the texts are addressed, as well as to vocabulary, style, cultural allusions, and organization. All of this is to expose the workings of two authors' argumentation. Through literature and philosophy in high school--philosophy is the major subject in the last year of high school and figures among the essay subjects on the baccalauréat exam—students get a lot of training in this type of analysis. And that’s before they start university.
To repeat my point, the historian discussants here are trained to look at not just what the booksellers said, (“My grandfather came to Paris after WWII, went to work in a bookshop and learned the trade, then bought a small shop specializing in scientific books attached to the Jardin de Plantes”), but also at how they, the historians constructed their own work, and how the interviewees constructed their narratives. I am repeating myself here--see my entry from Oct 5 on the discussion of Young Stalin)—but this way of looking at things is a constant among French academics and essential training in schools. I have never heard a discussion where the discussants failed to self-analyze and look below the surface story. A high school graduate writing his essay on the university entrance exam should explain that Voltaire favors culture because it creates comfort and the life of the intellect, while Rousseau prefers nature because it teaches heroism and strength, and also explain how each author uses language as persuasion.
Granted, my radio discussants are academics; a direct comparison would require comparing their discouse to that of American historians. In my opinion, however, below-the-surface analysis is less common with Americans, whose training in it comes later. We aren't asked to do much of it before college, and even as undergraduates might not do a lot of it. In contrast, our training as lifelong consumers of the simplistic story lines of Hollywood films and television shows is very powerful. The educational system here tries to overcome some of this, but the French kind of training starts earlier and is more generalized in the population.
Of course, the French can be guilty of over-analyzing. It's hard to have a short conversation over a cup of coffee if you're in a hurry, and endless analysis can replace action. On Sept 11, 2001, it turned out to be good that the Americans on the last hijacked plane were steeped in the Hollywood story of the individualistic hero. They saved the White House or the U.S. Capitol by following the examples of Bruce Willis and Vin Diesel. Moreover, the web page with its model of literary analysis does illustrate another sometimes troubling French tendency: they really like models to follow. Still, we could use some more attention to make our common narratives tell something beyond, "What happened?" Noticing these differences in thinking is the study of culture.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/books/review/Leonhardt-t.html?_r=1&ref=books Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. Gladwell's comments echo France Culture's reviewers of Young Stalin on unexamined ideology underlying common American narratives. See my Oct 5 post.
http://www.site-magister.com/sujets15.htm essay topics on literary analysis asked on the 2008 baccalauréat. In French. Bac topics are always published shortly after the exams are over in June.
http://www.education.gouv.fr/bo/2003/25/MENE0301199A.htm Ministry of Education’s national program of topics and objectives for the teaching of philosophy in “terminale,” the last year of high school. Scroll down for the tables showing topics to be treated in the three main high school tracks—humanities, business, and sciences. In French.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The (French) Republic Must Take up the American Challenge
So says Yazid Sabeg, child of Algerian immigrants, millionaire and author of a manifesto on "The American Challenge" that appeared in the Paris daily Le journal du dimanche. (Yes, it used to be a Sunday paper but now runs daily.) The United States has one-upped Europe, including France, with the election of Barack Obama. Nowhere in Europe--Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, or any other country--can anyone conceive of a Black person or son/daughter of an immimgrant becoming president or prime minister. This obvious fact has provoked soul-searching by Europeans about why their own countries are so far behind the U.S. in equality of opportunity. They see an America to admire. We have shamed the Europeans by electing a candidate--who happens to be Black--because the public thought he was the better candidate.
Sabeg's manifesto was signed by some political leaders across a range of political groups: socialists, conservatives, Greens, some prominent academics. The major parties are now competing to see which one can best claim to improve opportunity for people from minority backgrounds. Nicolas Sarkozy, a conservative who as Interior Minister (aka national sheriff) was tough on immigrant youth, has been for some time a proponent of affirmative action, which he calls "positive discrimination." So is M. Sabeg. (Sarkozy's Minister for Immigrant Affairs, a woman of North African descent, is against it, however.) Sarkozy's Socialist opponent from 2007, Ségolène Royal, is trying to outdo Sarkozy and claim leadership in the equality movement.
The problem for minorities and immigrants in France, or one problem, is that the principles of the French Republic do not admit the existence of ethnic communities. In the U.S. we speak of Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans as a normal reality. In French thinking, there is no such thing as hyphenated-French. There is only one group in France: the French. To recognize subgroups would be to fracture the nation. The French disdain "American" multiculturalism. In their view, their country has one culture. Encouraging a multiplicity of cultures is the road to factionalism and disaster. Immigrants are expected to assimilate and join the one French culture. There is no room for, or reason for, being "different." The census and other official documents do not keep tabs on race or religion. (See above on not "fracturing" the nation.) Such statistics as can be found on percentages of Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, whites, or blacks in France come from polling organizations, not from the government. The government would not consider collecting such information; the nation is not a collection of subgroups.
France is a country of "multiculturalism--nonsense!" and "immigrants--it's your job to learn the national language, become just like us, and then we'll accept you." I have sometimes thought of writing an essay entitled, "U.S. Conservatives are French. They Just Don't Know It."
The fact that differences are not officially recognized does not mean that they are not socially recognized. Famous test cases have been done showing that two identical resumes with two different names and addresses at the top, one "traditional" French and one "Arab" or "African" get completely different responses in the job market. Mohammed from a postal code in Seine-et-Marne, but with the same CV as Jean-Pierre from a "more correct" address does not get called for an interview. Jean-Pierre does.
Another problem, which is not just an obstacle to minorities, is that ladders to success in France are not very flexible. Almost all the people at the top of politics went to the same elite schools and give a leg up to people like themselves.
Yazid Sadeg, author of the manifesto, says, "Parce que l'élection de Barack Obama est un défi, que les républicains doivent relever. La société américaine a mis la diversité au coeur de sa démocratie, quand notre modèle d'intégration, fondé sur l'égalitarisme, ne produit que de la frustration et l'inertie sociale. Nos élites s'abritent derrière le dogme pour préserver leurs situations acquises. La France devrait méditer Aristote: "Il n'y a rien de plus injuste que de traiter de façon égale des situations inégales."
Which I will translate as, "Because the election of Barack Obama is a challenge that the supporters of our Republic must take up. American society has put diversity at the heart of its democracy, while our model of integration, founded on egalitarianism, produces only frustration and social inertia. Our elites take shelter behind dogma to preserve their places. France must meditate on what Artistotle said: 'There is nothing more unjust than to treat unequal situations as equal.'"
NYTimes article from Nov 11 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/world/europe/12europe.html?emc=eta1
manifesto http://www.lejdd.fr/cmc//politique/200845/yazid-sabeg-la-republique-doit-relever-le-defi-americain_163656.html
article about the competition http://www.letelegramme.com/gratuit/generales/france/un-manifeste-pour-legalite-reelle-20081110-4144764_1527941.php
Sabeg's manifesto was signed by some political leaders across a range of political groups: socialists, conservatives, Greens, some prominent academics. The major parties are now competing to see which one can best claim to improve opportunity for people from minority backgrounds. Nicolas Sarkozy, a conservative who as Interior Minister (aka national sheriff) was tough on immigrant youth, has been for some time a proponent of affirmative action, which he calls "positive discrimination." So is M. Sabeg. (Sarkozy's Minister for Immigrant Affairs, a woman of North African descent, is against it, however.) Sarkozy's Socialist opponent from 2007, Ségolène Royal, is trying to outdo Sarkozy and claim leadership in the equality movement.
The problem for minorities and immigrants in France, or one problem, is that the principles of the French Republic do not admit the existence of ethnic communities. In the U.S. we speak of Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans as a normal reality. In French thinking, there is no such thing as hyphenated-French. There is only one group in France: the French. To recognize subgroups would be to fracture the nation. The French disdain "American" multiculturalism. In their view, their country has one culture. Encouraging a multiplicity of cultures is the road to factionalism and disaster. Immigrants are expected to assimilate and join the one French culture. There is no room for, or reason for, being "different." The census and other official documents do not keep tabs on race or religion. (See above on not "fracturing" the nation.) Such statistics as can be found on percentages of Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, whites, or blacks in France come from polling organizations, not from the government. The government would not consider collecting such information; the nation is not a collection of subgroups.
France is a country of "multiculturalism--nonsense!" and "immigrants--it's your job to learn the national language, become just like us, and then we'll accept you." I have sometimes thought of writing an essay entitled, "U.S. Conservatives are French. They Just Don't Know It."
The fact that differences are not officially recognized does not mean that they are not socially recognized. Famous test cases have been done showing that two identical resumes with two different names and addresses at the top, one "traditional" French and one "Arab" or "African" get completely different responses in the job market. Mohammed from a postal code in Seine-et-Marne, but with the same CV as Jean-Pierre from a "more correct" address does not get called for an interview. Jean-Pierre does.
Another problem, which is not just an obstacle to minorities, is that ladders to success in France are not very flexible. Almost all the people at the top of politics went to the same elite schools and give a leg up to people like themselves.
Yazid Sadeg, author of the manifesto, says, "Parce que l'élection de Barack Obama est un défi, que les républicains doivent relever. La société américaine a mis la diversité au coeur de sa démocratie, quand notre modèle d'intégration, fondé sur l'égalitarisme, ne produit que de la frustration et l'inertie sociale. Nos élites s'abritent derrière le dogme pour préserver leurs situations acquises. La France devrait méditer Aristote: "Il n'y a rien de plus injuste que de traiter de façon égale des situations inégales."
Which I will translate as, "Because the election of Barack Obama is a challenge that the supporters of our Republic must take up. American society has put diversity at the heart of its democracy, while our model of integration, founded on egalitarianism, produces only frustration and social inertia. Our elites take shelter behind dogma to preserve their places. France must meditate on what Artistotle said: 'There is nothing more unjust than to treat unequal situations as equal.'"
NYTimes article from Nov 11 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/world/europe/12europe.html?emc=eta1
manifesto http://www.lejdd.fr/cmc//politique/200845/yazid-sabeg-la-republique-doit-relever-le-defi-americain_163656.html
article about the competition http://www.letelegramme.com/gratuit/generales/france/un-manifeste-pour-legalite-reelle-20081110-4144764_1527941.php
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
views on the U.S. election
This morning on Radio-Canada Montréal, Marc Laurendeau summarized the opinion pages of the Montreal papers as follows:
1) Do you remember Nov. 22, 1963, the day of the Kennedy assassination? July 20, 1969, the day the first man walked on the moon? Sept. 11, 2001, the day of the World Trade Center attacks? Yesterday, Nov. 4, 2008, is such a day, a day the world changed. (Journal de Montréal)
2) Obama's victory was the victory of young, multicultural, urban America over rural, white, older, and religious, America. It is a new America. (Le Devoir.)
3) 45 years after Martin Luther King enunciated his dream that his children's children would be judged on the content of their character, Obama has realized this dream. Americans voted for the candidate's ideas and character, not for the color of his skin. (André Pratte, La Presse).
4) The election reminds Québécois of their own Révolution Tranquille, or Quiet Revolution, the time of the 1960s and 1970s when Québec society changed in its fundamental attitudes and way of life. (Benoit Aubain, Le Journal de Montréal)
5) Obama is a symbol of the citizen of the world: a mixture of cultures and races, a world that can no longer be seen in manichean terms. You've got a dictionary--look it up. (Yves Boisvert, La Presse)
You can see that the editorialists are familiar with U.S. history and politics. Implicit in some of them, for example, #2 and #5, is a criticism of America's recent trends and a hope for a more outward-looking, international United States. In addition, I am struck by #1, whose author identifies with important "American" days as the key, epoch-making days in his own life, and assumed to have that same importance in the lives of his readers. The great, or horrible days, he remembers most are ones that happened in our country, not his own. Far from "hating America," as some Americans think people in other countries do, he identifies with our great triumphs and tragedies as key markers in his life.
1) Do you remember Nov. 22, 1963, the day of the Kennedy assassination? July 20, 1969, the day the first man walked on the moon? Sept. 11, 2001, the day of the World Trade Center attacks? Yesterday, Nov. 4, 2008, is such a day, a day the world changed. (Journal de Montréal)
2) Obama's victory was the victory of young, multicultural, urban America over rural, white, older, and religious, America. It is a new America. (Le Devoir.)
3) 45 years after Martin Luther King enunciated his dream that his children's children would be judged on the content of their character, Obama has realized this dream. Americans voted for the candidate's ideas and character, not for the color of his skin. (André Pratte, La Presse).
4) The election reminds Québécois of their own Révolution Tranquille, or Quiet Revolution, the time of the 1960s and 1970s when Québec society changed in its fundamental attitudes and way of life. (Benoit Aubain, Le Journal de Montréal)
5) Obama is a symbol of the citizen of the world: a mixture of cultures and races, a world that can no longer be seen in manichean terms. You've got a dictionary--look it up. (Yves Boisvert, La Presse)
You can see that the editorialists are familiar with U.S. history and politics. Implicit in some of them, for example, #2 and #5, is a criticism of America's recent trends and a hope for a more outward-looking, international United States. In addition, I am struck by #1, whose author identifies with important "American" days as the key, epoch-making days in his own life, and assumed to have that same importance in the lives of his readers. The great, or horrible days, he remembers most are ones that happened in our country, not his own. Far from "hating America," as some Americans think people in other countries do, he identifies with our great triumphs and tragedies as key markers in his life.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Who's reading what?
Every Friday, René Homier-Roy, the host of Radio-Canada Montréal's morning show, does a book review. In the past four weeks, his books of the week were written by 2 UK authors, 1 French, and 1 Italian. The UK and Italian books appeared in French translation. Over the long haul, it has been very noticeable to me that his reading list does not consist just of books written in French by Québec or French-language authors.
This leads into a topic I was thinking about before the controversy over Nobel secretary Engdahl's comments on Americans' insularity. I have noticed when in France and Québec that bookstores offer, and display prominently, literature from places outside their own country. If you took a walk through a bookstore, you would notice this right away. It's a striking difference if you are also used to walking through American bookstores. The same is true if you spend any time looking at the websites of online booksellers in the U.S. and in France and Québec. They are selling, and people are buying, books by their own national authors, but also books by authors from other countries. We do not. A person could draw the conclusion that Americans are interested only in ourselves.
Wherever I go, I end up spending time in bookstores, both the major chains and independent shops. In the two French-speaking places I have been most recently, France and Québec, the visual effect of book displays hits you over the head: there's a market for books by French-language authors in the original French, but also for U.S. and British authors either in English or in translation, as well as books by Italian, Spanish, African, Israeli, Arab, Eastern European, and Latin American authors in translation. There are fewer offerings from Chinese or Japanese authors, it is true.
Many of the prominent offerings in translation are genre fiction, that is, detective novels, thrillers, sci fi and other popular works that make up most of the best seller lists in most countries. Some are also more serious literary fiction.
Since I can't walk through a French bookstore to give examples, here are some titles from fnac.fr. La fnac is a large book/video/music chain. They have brick and mortar stores and also sell online. This week's 5 top sellers:
1. XIII Mystery vol 1 a French hardback crime manga
2. French translation of World Without End by Ken Follett
3. Ou on va, papa? French, book by a father of two handicapped children
4. French translation of Breaking Dawn by Stephenie Meyer (Twilight series)
5. Paradis sur mesure French sci fi
Its list of recommended novels includes novels in the original French, but also works translated from English, Italian, Spanish, and Hebrew. Its list of new books by foreign authors includes David Lodge, Ian McEwan, Alice Sebold, Richard Russo, Kate Atkinson, a number of African authors and some each of Italian, Algerian, Spanish, Swedish, and Israeli writers. All of these are translated. http://www.fnac.fr/ and http://www.amazo.fr/ See: livres.
Some of the comments I've heard arising the Nobel controversy have been, "Those Europeans read only their own authors," and " Why did they pick an unkown writer? " Not true on the first count, and unknown to you on the second. The Frankfurt Book Fair, the world's biggest trade fair for publishers, has just finished. According to both of the recent reports below, 3% of books published in the U.S. are translations of works written internationally in other languages. 3% is pretty low compared to what you find elsewhere.
If it's any comfort, I think things are about the same in the U.K. U.K. bookstores I visited in 2005 looked a lot like U.S. ones. I bought a few French books in London, but I had to find a specialty "foreign book" shop. Books by immigrant authors have achieved prominence in Britain, but these are books originally written in English.
Translation is foreign to U.S. Publishers. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/books/18book.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
The Best Foreign Books You've Never Heard Of a list of recommendations
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95729381
This leads into a topic I was thinking about before the controversy over Nobel secretary Engdahl's comments on Americans' insularity. I have noticed when in France and Québec that bookstores offer, and display prominently, literature from places outside their own country. If you took a walk through a bookstore, you would notice this right away. It's a striking difference if you are also used to walking through American bookstores. The same is true if you spend any time looking at the websites of online booksellers in the U.S. and in France and Québec. They are selling, and people are buying, books by their own national authors, but also books by authors from other countries. We do not. A person could draw the conclusion that Americans are interested only in ourselves.
Wherever I go, I end up spending time in bookstores, both the major chains and independent shops. In the two French-speaking places I have been most recently, France and Québec, the visual effect of book displays hits you over the head: there's a market for books by French-language authors in the original French, but also for U.S. and British authors either in English or in translation, as well as books by Italian, Spanish, African, Israeli, Arab, Eastern European, and Latin American authors in translation. There are fewer offerings from Chinese or Japanese authors, it is true.
Many of the prominent offerings in translation are genre fiction, that is, detective novels, thrillers, sci fi and other popular works that make up most of the best seller lists in most countries. Some are also more serious literary fiction.
Since I can't walk through a French bookstore to give examples, here are some titles from fnac.fr. La fnac is a large book/video/music chain. They have brick and mortar stores and also sell online. This week's 5 top sellers:
1. XIII Mystery vol 1 a French hardback crime manga
2. French translation of World Without End by Ken Follett
3. Ou on va, papa? French, book by a father of two handicapped children
4. French translation of Breaking Dawn by Stephenie Meyer (Twilight series)
5. Paradis sur mesure French sci fi
Its list of recommended novels includes novels in the original French, but also works translated from English, Italian, Spanish, and Hebrew. Its list of new books by foreign authors includes David Lodge, Ian McEwan, Alice Sebold, Richard Russo, Kate Atkinson, a number of African authors and some each of Italian, Algerian, Spanish, Swedish, and Israeli writers. All of these are translated. http://www.fnac.fr/ and http://www.amazo.fr/ See: livres.
Some of the comments I've heard arising the Nobel controversy have been, "Those Europeans read only their own authors," and " Why did they pick an unkown writer? " Not true on the first count, and unknown to you on the second. The Frankfurt Book Fair, the world's biggest trade fair for publishers, has just finished. According to both of the recent reports below, 3% of books published in the U.S. are translations of works written internationally in other languages. 3% is pretty low compared to what you find elsewhere.
If it's any comfort, I think things are about the same in the U.K. U.K. bookstores I visited in 2005 looked a lot like U.S. ones. I bought a few French books in London, but I had to find a specialty "foreign book" shop. Books by immigrant authors have achieved prominence in Britain, but these are books originally written in English.
Translation is foreign to U.S. Publishers. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/books/18book.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
The Best Foreign Books You've Never Heard Of a list of recommendations
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95729381
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Canadian elections
I haven't said anything to date about the Canadian federal elections because the outcome was admitted by everyone to be pretty predictable. The Conservative Party won, as everyone expected. The only question was whether their win would be big enough to give them a majority in Parliament instead of the plurality that has allowed them to rule through a minority government since January, 2006. Answer: They increased their plurality but still did not get a majority. The bigger story is that the Liberals continued their downward electoral slide. The Conservatives gained 16 seats; the Liberal Party lost 30 seats. How does that add up? People voted for third and fourth parties, most likely to avoid giving the Conservatives an outright majority. Still, this plurality is just 10 votes short of a majority. To win a confidence vote and bring this government down, all of the opposition parties would have to vote together.
Then in Québec, there's the Bloc Québécois. I'm not going to attempt to explain them at this time. If you want to start on your own, see "Charlottetown" and "Lake Meech."
The whole campaign lasted 37 days, blessedly short compared to lengthy U.S. campaigns. On the other hand, it seems like a short time to get to know the candidates. That is, if the candidates are unknowns. In this case, they were not. This was practically a replay of the federal election of 32 months ago. Now that one was a sizzler! Parliamentary systems elect a government for "up to" a specified mandate, generally 5 years. The Premier and his party can choose to dissolve Parliament and hold new elections sooner than that, and do so when they feel they have an advantage (good poll numbers, recent successes, disarray among the opposition). Or the opposition can force new elections through a no-confidence vote on a major bill, usually a budget bill. This was Canada's third election for national leadership in 5 years.
Throughout campaign speakers on radio and TV have said the Canadian election was, in fact, less important than U.S. elections. There is heavy coverage of our Presidential election. They talk about it every day, and have been doing so for a long time. As a rule, the Québécois I hear on the radio read U.S. newspapers and watch U.S. TV. It’s not unusual to hear them discuss what was on “60 Minutes.” They have the ability to move back and forth between the two languages and see what’s going on unfiltered in the original language. In the U.S. Presidential elections, they’re watching and analyzing the debates, the TV ads and just about everything you could see or read in the U.S.
Radio-Canada's morning and evening news shows include a format that is common in media outside the U.S., the press review. Someone, or a panel of someones, goes through today's newspapers of various stripes and summarizes their important stories. In five minutes, listeners get an overview of 6 or 8 or more stories carried in different outlets. Since the reporters on Radio-Canada are bilingual in French and English, they cover the newspapers in Québec, in other parts of Canada, and major U.S., U.K., and European papers. Typically, the summaries run something like this: "Today Le Devoir and La presse (Montréal francophone), the Gazette (Montréal anglophone), the Globe and Mail and the Star (Toronto), the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune are featuring... Then in Europe, the Guardian, the Times, Libération, Figaro, and another paper or two have main articles about....." There's occasional news from newspapers not in French or English, but it is mostly from francophone or anglophone sources. You have to listen fast, but I love this stuff.
Getting the news this way means there's not a single, clear interpretation; that makes it difficult for me to say, "Here it is," about the election results. That would require a really long time listening to sort out all the different views.
One clear fact that inspired frequent comment was the low voter turnout, the lowest in Canadian election history. After all, it was the 3rd in 5 years and practically a repeat of 2006. Still, the "low" voter turnout was repeatedly cited as 59%. That sounds high to me compared to what I've heard before about U.S. elections. Five minutes of googling suggests, however, that there are lots of ways to calculate the numbers.
U.S. voter turnout according to Information Please 43%http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
A George Mason Univ professor adjusts the numbers to subtract ineligible adults like non-citizens and felons who have lost their voting rights. His graph says about 60%. http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm
Here are his detailed statistics for 2004, the most recent Presidential year. 2006 was in the 30 and 40 percents.
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2004G.html
I wonder how the Canadian numbers were arrived at. And by the way,I voted today.
Then in Québec, there's the Bloc Québécois. I'm not going to attempt to explain them at this time. If you want to start on your own, see "Charlottetown" and "Lake Meech."
The whole campaign lasted 37 days, blessedly short compared to lengthy U.S. campaigns. On the other hand, it seems like a short time to get to know the candidates. That is, if the candidates are unknowns. In this case, they were not. This was practically a replay of the federal election of 32 months ago. Now that one was a sizzler! Parliamentary systems elect a government for "up to" a specified mandate, generally 5 years. The Premier and his party can choose to dissolve Parliament and hold new elections sooner than that, and do so when they feel they have an advantage (good poll numbers, recent successes, disarray among the opposition). Or the opposition can force new elections through a no-confidence vote on a major bill, usually a budget bill. This was Canada's third election for national leadership in 5 years.
Throughout campaign speakers on radio and TV have said the Canadian election was, in fact, less important than U.S. elections. There is heavy coverage of our Presidential election. They talk about it every day, and have been doing so for a long time. As a rule, the Québécois I hear on the radio read U.S. newspapers and watch U.S. TV. It’s not unusual to hear them discuss what was on “60 Minutes.” They have the ability to move back and forth between the two languages and see what’s going on unfiltered in the original language. In the U.S. Presidential elections, they’re watching and analyzing the debates, the TV ads and just about everything you could see or read in the U.S.
Radio-Canada's morning and evening news shows include a format that is common in media outside the U.S., the press review. Someone, or a panel of someones, goes through today's newspapers of various stripes and summarizes their important stories. In five minutes, listeners get an overview of 6 or 8 or more stories carried in different outlets. Since the reporters on Radio-Canada are bilingual in French and English, they cover the newspapers in Québec, in other parts of Canada, and major U.S., U.K., and European papers. Typically, the summaries run something like this: "Today Le Devoir and La presse (Montréal francophone), the Gazette (Montréal anglophone), the Globe and Mail and the Star (Toronto), the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune are featuring... Then in Europe, the Guardian, the Times, Libération, Figaro, and another paper or two have main articles about....." There's occasional news from newspapers not in French or English, but it is mostly from francophone or anglophone sources. You have to listen fast, but I love this stuff.
Getting the news this way means there's not a single, clear interpretation; that makes it difficult for me to say, "Here it is," about the election results. That would require a really long time listening to sort out all the different views.
One clear fact that inspired frequent comment was the low voter turnout, the lowest in Canadian election history. After all, it was the 3rd in 5 years and practically a repeat of 2006. Still, the "low" voter turnout was repeatedly cited as 59%. That sounds high to me compared to what I've heard before about U.S. elections. Five minutes of googling suggests, however, that there are lots of ways to calculate the numbers.
U.S. voter turnout according to Information Please 43%http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
A George Mason Univ professor adjusts the numbers to subtract ineligible adults like non-citizens and felons who have lost their voting rights. His graph says about 60%. http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm
Here are his detailed statistics for 2004, the most recent Presidential year. 2006 was in the 30 and 40 percents.
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2004G.html
I wonder how the Canadian numbers were arrived at. And by the way,I voted today.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Who is Jean-Marie LeClezio?
French writer Jean-Marie LeClezio has been awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. LeClezio is a terrific writer whose work studies humanity from the points of view of people of many cultures. You may have heard the recent controversy sparked by a Nobel spokesman who made disparaging remarks about American literature. He said that U.S. writers are too insular and that American literature in general is too little interested in the world outside of us and our culture. Moreover, he said, American writers aren't very daring about trying new forms. They write very conventional novels. The gentleman's comments are unfortunate. Obviously, there are great contemporary American writers. The Nobel committee shouldn't exclude Americans just because they're Americans.
I hope this controversy won't take away from LeClezio's own merit. He is a really good writer. He has lived in a number of different countries and writes about people from a variety of backgrounds with great sympathy and thoughtfulness. For European or western readers, he often adopts a point of view that shows how "we" look to " them," without being ideological about it. He's also called " unclassifiable." Is he French? Well, sort of, but he lives in New Mexico, and in Nice, and in Mauritius, where his family came from originally. While he was doing his French military service in Thailand--France used to let draftees opt to perform their military service in another country instead of France, a practice that was dropped when a) potential conflicts between France and Algeria became possible and b) France abandoned the draft--he became really interested in Native Americans. His writings on Mexico have become important in college courses about Mexico. His literary influences include French writers, but also Americans. Yes, he writes in French. He is, however, a nontraditional, or non establishment writer in France.
Here's an excerpt from a 2001 interview:
" Your work is described as mystical, philosophical and even ecological! Do you recognize yourself in these descriptions? J.-M. G. Le Clézio: It is difficult to describe what you do yourself. If I had to assess my books I would say that they are what are most like me. In other words, for me it’s less a matter of expressing ideas than expressing what I am and what I believe in. When I write I am primarily trying to translate my relationship to the everyday, to events. We live in a troubled era in which we are bombarded by a chaos of ideas and images. The role of literature today is perhaps to echo this chaos. "
So France may be proud today because a Frenchman has won the Nobel, but LeClezio is anything but a typical Frenchman, and his writing is very international and often nontraditional in form.
Stanley Péan, a Québecois born in Haiti, said on Radio-Canada this afternooon that LeClezio's best quality is the purity of his style, nourished by a language that crosses borders. For sure, the Nobel committee picked someone who is not insular. I hope LeClezio's fitting the profile won't count against him. He is good on his own merits.
Stanley Péan's comments http://www.radio-canada.ca/audio-video/index.shtml#urlMedia=http://www.radio-canada.ca/Medianet/2008/RDI2/RDIEnDirectMatin200810090730_1.asx&pos=0
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france_159/label-france_2554/label-france-issues_2555/label-france-no.-45_3724/literature_3732/interview-with-jean-marie-clezio_5092.html 2005 article in English from French Foreign Ministry website
New York Times article on LeClezio's Prix Nobel http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/books/10nobel.html?hp
I hope this controversy won't take away from LeClezio's own merit. He is a really good writer. He has lived in a number of different countries and writes about people from a variety of backgrounds with great sympathy and thoughtfulness. For European or western readers, he often adopts a point of view that shows how "we" look to " them," without being ideological about it. He's also called " unclassifiable." Is he French? Well, sort of, but he lives in New Mexico, and in Nice, and in Mauritius, where his family came from originally. While he was doing his French military service in Thailand--France used to let draftees opt to perform their military service in another country instead of France, a practice that was dropped when a) potential conflicts between France and Algeria became possible and b) France abandoned the draft--he became really interested in Native Americans. His writings on Mexico have become important in college courses about Mexico. His literary influences include French writers, but also Americans. Yes, he writes in French. He is, however, a nontraditional, or non establishment writer in France.
Here's an excerpt from a 2001 interview:
" Your work is described as mystical, philosophical and even ecological! Do you recognize yourself in these descriptions? J.-M. G. Le Clézio: It is difficult to describe what you do yourself. If I had to assess my books I would say that they are what are most like me. In other words, for me it’s less a matter of expressing ideas than expressing what I am and what I believe in. When I write I am primarily trying to translate my relationship to the everyday, to events. We live in a troubled era in which we are bombarded by a chaos of ideas and images. The role of literature today is perhaps to echo this chaos. "
So France may be proud today because a Frenchman has won the Nobel, but LeClezio is anything but a typical Frenchman, and his writing is very international and often nontraditional in form.
Stanley Péan, a Québecois born in Haiti, said on Radio-Canada this afternooon that LeClezio's best quality is the purity of his style, nourished by a language that crosses borders. For sure, the Nobel committee picked someone who is not insular. I hope LeClezio's fitting the profile won't count against him. He is good on his own merits.
Stanley Péan's comments http://www.radio-canada.ca/audio-video/index.shtml#urlMedia=http://www.radio-canada.ca/Medianet/2008/RDI2/RDIEnDirectMatin200810090730_1.asx&pos=0
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france_159/label-france_2554/label-france-issues_2555/label-france-no.-45_3724/literature_3732/interview-with-jean-marie-clezio_5092.html 2005 article in English from French Foreign Ministry website
New York Times article on LeClezio's Prix Nobel http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/books/10nobel.html?hp
Sunday, October 5, 2008
"THAT's not how you tell a story"
Friday is book review day on La fabrique de l’histoire. Last Friday, the panel reviewed Young Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore and George Orwell by Bernard Crick (not new, but in a new edition), both translations into French of works originally published in English. I’ll confess that I brought Young Stalin home from the library but failed to read it. Too many other things to do, like listen to French radio.
Right from the start, the panelists objected to a number of things about the style of the book and its ideological assumptions. While they admired the depth of original research the author had done, including much travel to the Ukraine, Georgia and Russia, they did not like its “American” narrative style. What they meant by this was relating events in dramatic scenes, like those in a novel or film, including invented dialogue, and an emphasis on adventure. Apparently, after a classical education in the seminary, young Stalin was involved in bank robberies , gang activity, and generally led a pretty wild life. He is portrayed as dominating and cruel, prefiguring his later behavior as leader of the Soviet Union.
The panelists complained that the biographer’s “storytelling” approach lacks footnotes, making it unclear to readers where an anecdote comes from. Did the author take this piece from a previous biography or other published source or from an oral history or unpublished memoir he gathered during his travels? They also wanted him sometimes to explain his choices. Why did he include “this” and not “that?” They expected in the introduction or postface a statement of "these are my principles and procedures," like the ones you see artists post in an art show. In addition, several felt that the “boy’s adventure story” style, reminiscent of Dumas, comes from the fact that Montefiore’s research was funded by his publisher, who had the commercial appeal and movie rights in mind. (The film rights have been purchased, with Johnny Depp mentioned to play Stalin.) However, and this is a big however, one panelist had read the book in English and said the English version does have footnotes. If so, it’s an interesting question why the footnotes were left out of the French translation. I have seen the same in reverse in books translated from French to English.
The panelists were in no doubt that Stalin was a criminal, even a psychopath, in his youth and, on a much grander scale, as dictator. Several objected, however, to the book’s implied thesis: that the explanation of Stalin’s criminality was its origins in his youth, that the thing that set Stalin apart was his individual character. They saw this notion as a example of very Anglo-Saxon “liberalism.” The world ”liberalism,” as used in France and almost everywhere except the U.S., means a belief that the individual is the basis of all things, and that political and economic life is best governed by giving maximum freedom to individuals. Corollaries of this belief are unfettered free markets and a legal system that protects individual property and business rights over those of the community. Adam Smith was the ultimate liberal; advocates of government intervention in markets are not.
The author’s unquestioned assumption, the panelists said, was that Stalin rose to power on the strength of his disturbed personality. But the panel said, there are sick psychopaths everywhere in every time period. The proper question to address is, “What is it in a given society that allows a psychopath like Stalin to take control?” Therefore, in their view, the author misdirected his analysis of all that valuable research toward an individual question and failed to ask the societal question. And, as previously mentioned, he told a series of rip-roaring adventure tales, but is that really the important thing readers should know about a man who killed millions of people? Film in your local cinema in 2011.
In short, they read, and Montefiore's readers read, as his fans on amazon testify, according to a set of genre expectations. These may or may not be things the readers can state explicitly. They may also be culturally formed. You can certainly see unexpressed genre expectations in differences between French and U.S. films, for example.
Regarding the Orwell biography, I’ve blathered on too long already, so here’s the interesting part: The panelists were pretty baffled and agreed far less than about Young Stalin. They liked the author’s constant questioning of whether and to what extent he should take sources, including his own analyses, at face value. They found his style admirably reflective. They admitted , however, that Orwell was puzzling to them. As an upper class socialist in a society where a person can construct an identity of disparate parts, for example Disraeli as a Tory anarchist, Orwell did not fit into a type with which they were familiar. “Socialist” they know, but French Socialists are part of a whole package where the pieces all stick together.
Liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
La fabrique de l’histoire http://www.radiofrance.fr/chaines/france-culture2/emissions/fabriquenew/index.php?emission_id=45060149
Reviews of Young Stalin on amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Young-Stalin-Simon-Sebag-Montefiore/dp/1400044650
NYTimes review of Young Stalin http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/books/19book.html
Right from the start, the panelists objected to a number of things about the style of the book and its ideological assumptions. While they admired the depth of original research the author had done, including much travel to the Ukraine, Georgia and Russia, they did not like its “American” narrative style. What they meant by this was relating events in dramatic scenes, like those in a novel or film, including invented dialogue, and an emphasis on adventure. Apparently, after a classical education in the seminary, young Stalin was involved in bank robberies , gang activity, and generally led a pretty wild life. He is portrayed as dominating and cruel, prefiguring his later behavior as leader of the Soviet Union.
The panelists complained that the biographer’s “storytelling” approach lacks footnotes, making it unclear to readers where an anecdote comes from. Did the author take this piece from a previous biography or other published source or from an oral history or unpublished memoir he gathered during his travels? They also wanted him sometimes to explain his choices. Why did he include “this” and not “that?” They expected in the introduction or postface a statement of "these are my principles and procedures," like the ones you see artists post in an art show. In addition, several felt that the “boy’s adventure story” style, reminiscent of Dumas, comes from the fact that Montefiore’s research was funded by his publisher, who had the commercial appeal and movie rights in mind. (The film rights have been purchased, with Johnny Depp mentioned to play Stalin.) However, and this is a big however, one panelist had read the book in English and said the English version does have footnotes. If so, it’s an interesting question why the footnotes were left out of the French translation. I have seen the same in reverse in books translated from French to English.
The panelists were in no doubt that Stalin was a criminal, even a psychopath, in his youth and, on a much grander scale, as dictator. Several objected, however, to the book’s implied thesis: that the explanation of Stalin’s criminality was its origins in his youth, that the thing that set Stalin apart was his individual character. They saw this notion as a example of very Anglo-Saxon “liberalism.” The world ”liberalism,” as used in France and almost everywhere except the U.S., means a belief that the individual is the basis of all things, and that political and economic life is best governed by giving maximum freedom to individuals. Corollaries of this belief are unfettered free markets and a legal system that protects individual property and business rights over those of the community. Adam Smith was the ultimate liberal; advocates of government intervention in markets are not.
The author’s unquestioned assumption, the panelists said, was that Stalin rose to power on the strength of his disturbed personality. But the panel said, there are sick psychopaths everywhere in every time period. The proper question to address is, “What is it in a given society that allows a psychopath like Stalin to take control?” Therefore, in their view, the author misdirected his analysis of all that valuable research toward an individual question and failed to ask the societal question. And, as previously mentioned, he told a series of rip-roaring adventure tales, but is that really the important thing readers should know about a man who killed millions of people? Film in your local cinema in 2011.
In short, they read, and Montefiore's readers read, as his fans on amazon testify, according to a set of genre expectations. These may or may not be things the readers can state explicitly. They may also be culturally formed. You can certainly see unexpressed genre expectations in differences between French and U.S. films, for example.
Regarding the Orwell biography, I’ve blathered on too long already, so here’s the interesting part: The panelists were pretty baffled and agreed far less than about Young Stalin. They liked the author’s constant questioning of whether and to what extent he should take sources, including his own analyses, at face value. They found his style admirably reflective. They admitted , however, that Orwell was puzzling to them. As an upper class socialist in a society where a person can construct an identity of disparate parts, for example Disraeli as a Tory anarchist, Orwell did not fit into a type with which they were familiar. “Socialist” they know, but French Socialists are part of a whole package where the pieces all stick together.
Liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
La fabrique de l’histoire http://www.radiofrance.fr/chaines/france-culture2/emissions/fabriquenew/index.php?emission_id=45060149
Reviews of Young Stalin on amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Young-Stalin-Simon-Sebag-Montefiore/dp/1400044650
NYTimes review of Young Stalin http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/books/19book.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)