Making Avonlea: L. M. Montgomery and Popular Culture ed. by Irene Gammel (review)

her study the multifaceted mirroring effects of various cultural and ideo­ logical imaginarles, and observes the necessity to have “a re-evaluation and a reimagination of relationships between us all” (187). In this sense, this valuable volume serves well as a prolegomenon to further study in this area, encouraging us to find new ways of comparing and theorizing Asian North American literary texts “in a rapidly shifting transnational society” (186). Benzi Zhang Chinese University ofHong Kong Making Avonlea: L. M. Montgomery and Popular Culture. Ed. Irene Gamme!. Toronto: U Toronto P, 2002. 347 pp. $70.00 cloth. $2770, paper. The L.M. Montgomery Institute at the University of Prince Edward Island, which hosts the biennial International L. M. Montgomery conference, is responsible for significant contributions to Montgomery criticism in the past ten years. Making Avonlea collects revised papers from the 2000 con­ ference, L. M. Montgomery and Popular Culture, as well as some new and reprinted articles. True to its title, this volume examines Montgomery’s general contribution to popular culture rather than her specific literary pro­ ductions. The editor, Irene Gammel, has done a fine job of pulling together various articles and “snapshots” that deliver a multi-faceted portrait of Montgomery’ s international cultural impact. The first section of the book, Mapping Avonlea: Cultural Value and Iconography, explores Montgomery and her work for their iconic value. Carole Gerson’ s article, “ Anne of Green Gables Goes to University”exam­ ines “the thorny relationship between academic culture and popular culture in Canada” (21), outlining the extent to which academia has not valued Montgomery. Investigating Anne’ s significance as a cherished cultural icon, Cecily Devereux’s “ Anatomy of a ‘National Icon’: Anne of Green Gables and the ‘Bosom Friends’ Affair” recounts the media ruckus after an aca­ demic paper reportedly claimed Anne was a lesbian. Devereux purports to examine “What, exactly, does she [Anne] represent?” (33), suggesting that the media outcry “foregrounded] some o f‘our’assumptions about Anne, about the limits of her popularity, about national identity, and about how we read and value ‘national icons’” (41). However, Devereux does not offer an explanation of precisely what ‘our’assumptions are. Brenda R. Weber’s Book Reviews | 235 first-person narrative “Confessions of a Kindred Spirit with an Academic Bent”attempts to explore the emotional popularity ofMontgomery’ s books and does so from a largely uncritical and highly sentimental perspective. Juliet McMaster’s “Taking Control: Hair Red, Black, Gold and Nut-Brown” suggests that, in Anne of Green Gables and Emily ofNew Moon, Anne and Emily’s desire to control their hair is emblematic of their independence. Margaret Steffler’s “‘This has been a day in hell’: Montgomery, Popular Literature, Life Writing”discusses the experience of reading Montgomery’ s journals after a lifetime of reading the novels. Steffler suggests that the publication dates of Montgomery’ s journals mirror “the stages of our own womanhood”: “marriage, motherhood, work, domesticity, leisure, and society”(74). However, not all women follow, or can follow, or want to follow, such a life trajectory, and Montgomery also has a male readership . Elizabeth R. Epperly’ s “The Visual Imagination of L.M. Montgomery” describes the types of photographs that Montgomery took. One of the strongest articles in this section, Andrea McKenzie’ s “Writing in Pictures: International Images of Emily” looks at the covers of the Emily books from different countries for how they “embed the dominant, mostly hid­ den, value and power structures that inhabit a given culture at a particular time in history” (99). McKenzie argues that the covers educate '“readers’ in the attitudes towards women writers that were considered appropriate for the time and culture” (100). Irene Gammel’ s article, “Safe Pleasures for Girls,” revised from one that previously appeared in ESC, argues that Montgomery’ s heroines sidestep “the traditional model ofmale dominance and female submission” (117-118), an optimistic thesis arguably not borne out by Montgomery’ s later novels. The second section, Viewing Avonlea: Film, Television, Drama, and Musical, generally places the scholars in dialogue with one another. This tension makes for an engaging discussion of the various visual manifesta­ tions ofMontgomery’ sworks, highlighting a debate over the extent to which the new work should be...