Profiles in Canadian Literature ed. by Jeffrey Heath (review)

442 LETTERS IN CANADA 1983 to have been made on the basis ofavailability of material. But these are, on the whole, relatively minor criticisms of what will obviously be, along with the Literary History ofCanada, one of the major works of reference in Canadian studies. (LINDA HUTCHEON) Jeffrey Heath, editor. Profiles in Canadian Literature, volumes 3and 4 Dundurn Press 1982. 128, 132, illus. $16,50 paper each volume The Profiles in Canadian Literature series is designed to provide basic introductions for senior high-school and junior-leveluniversity students. Each study (available separately in pamphlet form as well as in the paperbound volumes) contains a biographical and critical essay, a chronology, brief selections of quotations from both writer and critics, and an introductory bibliography. In the Summer 1982 'Letters in Canada' (vol 51, pp 440-2), Sean Kane wrote a Witty, shrewd, and decidedly critical review of the first two volumes. It seems proper, then, to consider whether the recent volumes are an improvement on their predecessors. These profIles are certainly better balanced. Whereas Gabrielle Roy was a token French Canadian in the first two series, here we find introductions to Louis Hernon, Ringuet, Gratien Gelinas, Anne Hebert, Marcel Dube, Marie-Claire Blais, and Hubert Aquin. Moreover, while drama received no attention in the initial volumes (save for a brief consideration of Robertson Davies's plays), here are studies of Merrill Denison, James Reaney, George Ryga, Michael Cook, and David French as well as the Quebecois dramatists in the list given above. The series is still in process, and in later volumes further gaps will doubtless be fIlled. Viewed together, the series now looks much more comprehensive and representative than it did when only the first two volumes had appeared. The individual studies vary conSiderably, ofcourse, with the abilities of the contributors. Some seem to me excellent, and several of these are especially welcome since they discuss authors who have not yet enjoyed much scholarly attention; I'm thinking in particular of the essays on Norman Levine, Milton Acorn, Austin Clarke, Michael Cook, and David French. Iknow of no better introductions to these writers, and the studies in question are full of basic information not readily obtainable elsewhere. Such studies are, of course, open to abuse: indolent students can quarry them for essays and assignments instead of using them as stimulation towards further work and thought. But that is true of most literary-critical work, and the important question to ask is: do these studies help to introduce students to acceptable critical standards? Many of them, Ithink, do. Without going into subtleties, they providea reliable, considered entree into the writer's work, and such introductions are HUMANITIES 443 much needed. But some, alas, do not. Examples can be found of loose, confusing terminology, and basic failure on the part of critics to come to grips with the major issues that the literature raises. For example, here are extracts from the study of Susanna Moodie: 'Roughing It in the Bush is, from many vantage-points, a dramatic and convincing work ... the book is always interesting and stylistically appropriate ... it is a "true history.'" What do the words 'dramatic,' 'convincing,' 'stylistically appropriate' and' "true history'" mean in this context? We are never told. And anyone familiar with Roughing II will know that, unexplained, they are grotesquely inadequate terms. And here is a piece of plot summary concerning Ryga's The Ecstasy of Rita Joe: 'Rita Joe sees two white horses flying across the sky led by her grandfather, who died before she was born and whom she identifies with God; in her desperation, she telephones the police (the symbol of white authority) and, as a kind of sick joke, asks to talk to God. When the police laugh and put her off with a number that doesn't answer, Rita Joe recognizes that neither God nor traditional Indian values have any authOrity in white bureaucratic society.' What will students make of this? How are they (or we) to respond to this parody of logic? Other instances could be cited (some commentaries, including those on John Richardson and Adele Wiseman, totally ignore style, for instance). And the anthology of comments by Bliss Carman contains...