| Reviews / Comptes Rendus | Labour/Le Travail, 52

Reviews / Comptes Rendus

Robert Wright, Hip and Trivial: Youth Culture, Book Publishing and the Greying of Canadian Nationalism (Toronto: Canadian Scholar's Press 2001)

IN HIP AND TRIVIAL, Robert Wright is writing about two things: the social, political, and personal maturation of young Canadians, and their reading habits. In the introduction, the two seem unconsciously and indefensibly (to my mind) intertwined. The central task of youth is to determine who they are in the context of a peer and adult world and, on that foundation, to find a distinctive sense of self. To interweave reading with youth as if the absence of reading may lead to trivialization of their existence and of our nation's culture is a mistake. Low levels of book reading, especially of Canadian literary output, by Canadian youth, may or may not prove a permanent condition of their lives. I see no foundation for moral panic over this generation's reading patterns. If reading speaks to youth, they will embrace it.

That said, the implications of the reading patterns of young Canadians is the subject of Hip and Trivial. What does the book offer? Three external elements date this book and bring into question the analysis Wright proffers. First, J.K. Rowling has demonstrated that if an author can deliver the right content in the right form, a whole generation will take up reading at a greatly enhanced level. Second, the terrorist attack on New York and Washington of 11 September 2001 demonstrates that, from time to time, events will occur that will remind Canadians that much as we might lend a helpful and willing hand to the citizens of the US, their government is on an imperialist trajectory that is not ours. Canadian authors help Canadians to know themselves. Third, at the time that Wright was writing, the intellectual and cultural élite of the country was experiencing a profound shock brought about by massive governmental spending cuts, a defensive manoeuvre of the Chrétien Liberals and overseen by then Finance Minister, Paul Martin. In two years, 1997 and 1998, the publishing industry lost half its federal grants — cuts everywhere were the order of the day — and, the only credible political alternative were deeper cuts promised by Preston Manning and put in place by various provincial governments, Ontario and Alberta in particular. Suddenly, book publishing in its entirety seemed vulnerable to collapse. Concern for youth was emerging as well. In the context of decline of public spending, youth and especially social mobility are vulnerable.

To the book itself. Wright's conclusions are, in essence, that youth are more literate than ever; that we are beginning to see a new generation of writers and publishers in Canada; that the left nationalist project has been eclipsed; and, that the study of literature in schools tends not to bring many students to a lifelong love of Canadian literature. Incidentally, given those conclusions, the book is mistitled. A simple question mark after Hip and Trivial would have made it more accurate.

To my mind, the book lacks a clear, close, and explicit argument. Indeed, in general, the basic argument is both understated and overpowered by data, some of which is of questionable relevance. For example: Chapter 1, "Background," describes the development of Canadian writing and publishing beginning in the late 1960s but provides little assessment of its impact. Chapter 2, "Publishing in Canada," describes three threats to the life of Canadian writing and publishing but does little to evaluate their significance. Chapter 3, "Youth Culture in Canada," reviews the opportunities for youth, their disposable income, and some sociological survey data that present a contradictory picture to the data suggested in the first two parts of the chapter. The data are presented and the contradiction is left unresolved.

Chapter 5, "Reading Youth," is the core of the book in that its central focus is the reading patterns of youth. Within it, a major amount of attention is paid to two interpretations of one data set. My intimate familiarity with the data and one of the studies comes from the fact that Roger Barnes (a market researcher) and I guided Nancy Duxbury in her analysis of the data.

The major difficulties with the reading data cited by Wright are threefold. First, there is a long preamble to the questionnaire intended to be read by the respondent that sets, or attempts to set, a completely biased mind set in the recipients. It speaks of the positive value of reading and all but demands that respondents overestimate their reading-related habits. Our work in examining the data suggested that, for example, respondents may have overestimated their spending on books and reading times by as much as two to three times. Additionally, the preamble plays a neat psychological one- upsmanship trick on respondents by pitching its message in such complex language that the meaning of the preamble beyond "reading is important" is almost incomprehensible. Barnes found that it tested out a Grade 21 (yes, 21, not 12) reading level. Did it have any impact? The almost complete absence of Harlequin romances indicates that the data are statistically anomalous given the sales of Harlequins in Canada. A second major difficulty with the core data of the chapter is that all the data were recall data. Thirdly, the questionnaire was far too long for anyone who did not "believe in reading."

Beyond the problem of the basic validity of the data, Wright's interpretation of the two analyses of the data falls short. Wright reports that between 1978 and 1991 there was a 25 per cent increase in book reading for Canadians aged 15 to 19. For anyone who works with survey data, such a dramatic increase would ring alarm bells, deafeningly. Wright also takes at face value the number of books read by the average Canadian per year. For 15-to-19-year-olds the reported average was 25.4 books per year or one book nearly every two weeks. How would anyone have time to play hockey?

The data Wright reports on the reading of Canadian-authored and Canadian-published titles from the same data set are difficult to interpret. Consistently, Canadian publishers and Canadian authors have 25 per cent of the market in terms of books shipped. Consistently, reading and purchasing data show a much lower percentage of consumption. No one has a reasonable explanation for this difference.

But thankfully, all is not lost. Wright reports on some interviews that he carried out, and on some correspondence with several young writers and fledgling publishers who are publishing their peers and bringing new writers forward. The material is interesting. Yet, it is very difficult to know the significance of these authors and publishers.

So what does the book all mean? The buzz in Ottawa on the release of the book was a concern with the low reading levels of Canadian authors and books by 15-to-19-year-olds. One trouble with that small passing panic: The data patterns do not appear to be very different from previous generations. Various research, one study of which Wright cites, shows that Canadians grow into a concern for their country in their late 20s and 30s.

As to the left nationalist project being eclipsed, I believe that there is sufficient social data extant to indicate that Canada, and most countries, are going through ideological renewal. To me that is quite an exciting prospect, not one that I fear or dread. Nor do I believe that Canada will end up weakened in the hands of the next generation. As for Canadian-owned book publishing, I believe that there MUST be a succession strategy put in place over the next few years for the Canadian-owned tradebook publishing industry. What better time for it to happen than when young people around the world are engaged in the task of ideological renewal?


Rowland Lorimer Simon Fraser University

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.