Canadian Literature In English

When "Canadian Literature in English" was first published by Longman in 1985 it was described (in the "Modern Language Review") as a standard reference work on the subject' and the best critical account of its subject that we possess so far'. The book was released in London and New York, as such things were done at the time, but never distributed particularly well in Canada, where it faded, rapidly, from view. W. J. Keith, writing in the Preface to the Revised Edition, admits his first inclination was to embark on a total rewrite of the Longman edition. On further consideration, however, Keith came to realize that the 1985 publication was completed at the close of a major phase in the Canadian literary tradition' and that the remarkable flowering that began to manifest itself in the middle of the twentieth century had run its course by the beginning of the new millennium.' That being the case, Keith would argue that a number of writers who had already achieved [ considerable stature further developed their reputations' (in the period 1985-2005) but only a few extended them'. Keith is also quick to admit that he has chosen to ignore utterly the popular' at the one extreme (Robert Service, Lucy Maud Montgomery) as well as the avant-garde' (bpnichol, Anne Carson) at the other, in favour of those authors whose style lends itself to the simple pleasure of reading, and to that end he dedicates his history to all those (including the general reading public whose endangered status is much lamented in the Polemical Conclusion'') who recognize and celebrate the dance of words.'

Hailed as a landmark in Canadian literary scholarship when it was originally published in 1965, the Literary History of Canada is now being reissued, revised and enlarged, in three volumes. This major effort of a large group of scholars working in the field of English-language Canadian literature provides a comprehensive, up-to-date reference work. It has already proven itself invaluable as a source of information on authors, genres, and literary trends and influences. It represents a positive attempt to give a history of Canada in terms of writings which deserve attention because of significant thought, form, and use of language. Volume 2, a revision of Part IV of the original edition, covers the period from about 1920 to 1960. The contributors to this volume are Desmond Pacey, William Kilbourn, Henry B. Mayo, Millar MacLure, John Webster Grant, Thomas A. Goudge, Elizabeth Waterston, Brandon Conron, Jay Macpherson, Sheila A. Egoff, Michael Tait, Hugo McPherson, Munro Beattie, and Northrop Frye.

Hailed as a landmark in Canadian literary scholarship when it was originally published in 1965, the Literary History of Canada is now being reissued, revised and enlarged, in three volumes. This major effort of a large group of scholars working in the field of English-language Canadian literature provides a comprehensive, up-to-date reference work. It has already proven itself invaluable as a source of information on authors, genres, and literary trends and influences. It represents a positive attempt to give a history of Canada in terms of writings which deserve attention because of significant thought, form, and use of language. Volume 3 has been newly written for this edition of the History, and covers the years from about 1960 to 1974. The contributors to this volume are Claude Bissell, Desmond Pacey, Lauriat Lane, jr, Michael S. Cross, Thomas A. Goudge, John Webster Grant, John H. Chapman, William E. Swinton, Henry B. Mayo, Malcolm Ross, Brandon Conron, Clara Thomas, Sheila A. Egoff, John Ripley, William H. New, George Woodcock, and Northrop Frye.

Hailed as a landmark in Canadian literary scholarship when it was originally published in 1965, the Literary History of Canada is now being reissued, revised and enlarged, in three volumes. This major effort of a large group of scholars working in the field of English-language Canadian literature provides a comprehensive, up-to-date reference work. It has already proven itself invaluable as a source of information on authors, genres, and literary trends and influences. It represents a positive attempt to give a history of Canada in terms of writings which deserve attention because of significant thought, form, and use of language. Volume I comprises Parts I to III of the original edition, and covers the years from the beginning of Canadian literature in English to about 1920. The contributors to this volume are David Galloway, Victor G. Hopwood, Alfred G. Bailey, Fred Cogswell, James and Ruth Talman, Carl F. Klinck, Edith Gordon Roper, Rupert Schieder, S. Ross Beharriell, Brandon Conron, Elizabeth Waterston, Alec Lucas, John A. Irving, A.H. Johnson, A. Vibert Douglas, and Frank W. Watt.

Part One of this strongly worded, informed, and wide-ranging collection examines key issues for the future of Canadian criticism. Part Two offers new readings of important works by Grove, Wilson, MacLennan, Davies, Laurence, Hood, Wiebe, Hodgins, and Atwood. As W.J. Keith argues, `We still have a mission: to have our literature recognized as an essential reflection of our national life. This is what I mean by retrenchment and consolidation. Literature can survive without literary criticism but it cannot survive if it is unknown and unread. It is criticism's prime function at the present time to see that it is both known and read with that mature enjoyment which is a combination of emotional sensitivity and humane intelligence. As critics, scholars, editors, we shall not be fulfilling our responsibilities or justifying our existence if we attempt anything less.' Or as Keith modestly observes in his introduction to this collection, `If this book is of any interest, it will be because Canadian literature is an important subject. Literary commentators like myself are middle-men, and should be prepared to admit the fact. If this book succeeds in helping readers to appreciate the works of Canadian writers that I discuss, and to derive increased pleasure and insight from them, it will have served its purpose. I can see no other justification for it -- or for any other work of criticism.'