Future Indicative: Literary Theory and Canadian Literature ed. by John Moss (review)

138 LETTERS IN CANADA 1988 reading of the text. McSweeney's account of the novel is particularly strong in its discussion of narrative technique, specifically in identifying the distance between the retrospective narrating 'I' and the 'I' who experiences the events depicted in the text. McSweeney also presents detailed analyses of important episodes in the novel, and he is a close reader of Ellison's strategies of repetition, or what McSweeney calls in his commentary 'the variation-in-repetition that signals significance.' Elsewhere, however, McSweeney is perhaps less incisive than one would wish, particularly in a text designed at least in part as a guide for students. He might, for example, have been more precise in his discussion of the relationship of realistic discourse to narrative technique in Ellison's text, although this, admittedly, is a notoriously difficult aspect of Invisible Man. McSweeney is more detailed in his discussions of the use of blues, jazz, and Afro-American folklore in the novel, and he makes judicious use of Ellison's own extensive commentary on the novel. A discussion of Invisible Man in the context of a Masterwork Series may appear to invite an act of critical genuflection before an acknowledged classic. McSweeney avoids this pitfall, but at times his evaluative commentary suggests that he would feel more comfortable discussing Ellison's novel as a flawed masterwork. He argues, for example, that 'both the character and characterization of Mr. Norton seem distinctly thin,' and he later remarks that Jack, one of the major figures in the Brotherhood, 'is conspicuously thin and rises only a little, if at all, above the level of caricature.' In a similar vein, McSweeney suggests in his discussion of chapter 8, 'Had one been in an editorial position to do so, it would have been hard not to urge that the chapter be merged with the equally short chapter 7.' While McSweeney is not the first to suggest that Invisible Man is an uneven achievement, he might have made a stronger attempt to account for the text as it exists. One might be disinclined to voice this reservation about an otherwise admirable study, but McSweeney himself tells us in this book that 'good novels are self-authenticating and must be allowed to conduct themselves· on their own terms.' This reservation aside, McSweeney's critical account of Invisible Man has much to offer. His prose is lucid and his discussion is sophisticated yet accessible. He also emphasizes, properly, the 'sociohistorical' dimension ofEllison's text, and like any good critic he keeps the reader fully aware of the provisional nature ofhis claims to authority. (THOMAS CARMICHAEL) John Moss, editor. Future Indicative: Literary Theory and Canadian Literature . Reappraisals, Canadian Writers 13. University of Ottawa Press 1987. 247. $39.95; $24.95 paper Future Indicative offers the texts of papers and panel discussions of the HUMANITIES 139 University of Ottawa conference 'Future Indicative: Literary Theory and Canadian Literature,' held 25-7 April 1986. Several of the papers include material marked as being written after the conference, and the collection itself begins with an introduction by the conference organizer, John Moss. Although several ofthe contributors, notably Barbara Godard, Francesco Loriggio, Terry Goldie, and Sherrill Grace, emphasize the ideologically combative ground occupied by literary theory, and a numberofothers the difficulty literary theory has encountered in gaining entry to Canadian classrooms mostly dedicated to textual explication, John Moss's introduction is cheerful, optimistic, and self-satisfied. The 'future indicative' concept 'worked well - as a rubric under which to gather' the conference papers, and 'as a book title ... works well, too.' The papers are 'on the whole quite congenial,' reflect a 'vital process,' and offer a 'marvellous reward ofcomprehension.' Although theory 'may at times seem esoteric,' it is 'also rewarding.' The rhetoric of the introduction works repeatedly to translate the intellectual labour of the conference into emotional affect, and ultimately into triumph. 'Work-in-progress' becomes an invitation 'to share in the excitement.' The'exhaustive' opening day of'discourse on critical theory' is not really exhaustive but'exhilarating.' The conference's bringing of literary theorists 'together and into the open [means] that there can be no turning back. Canadian literature has changed.' So insistent is...