I just finished(yesterday, that is), Winifred Bambrick's Continental Revue, which won the GG in 1946, only a year after the war at the onset of which the book takes place. (Wow, grammar anyone?) Anyway, this book has all kinds of interesting things surrounding it which I feel compelled to document in case this "project" of mine ever becomes bigger than me being a thorn in the library's side...(they tell me that they find it fascinating, yeah, at least someone does;)). First, I got an edition that was actually published as Continental Revue, which is how it was published in Canada and other places than the US. There is a US edition of the book called Keller's Continental Revue...which is kind of like that whole Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone deal. But, that's not the end of the somewhat interesting/boring sidenotes to this book. Other notes to remember: this book I received via interlibrary loan, and it came from the furthest away(the book that claimed this title before Laura Salverson's The Dark Weaver, which traveled all the way from Kent, Ohio). Revue came from the University of Pennsylvania library(ironic since I got in there, visited, and chose McGill over it); it was a first edition, and the last person to check it out besides me was someone in 1972! It has been in STORAGE all this time. It's really kind of neat to think that I have the ability to get a book out of storage just for my not always so little of a project.:) Everyone at work et al has told me that I have officially achieved higher dork status than before due to my excitement over the distance this book traveled and the fact that I'm probably going to be one of the only people in this vast country to read this novel this year and possibly the only one to have read it in decades...I don't understand why(the dorkiness, yes, I totally am and I'm even proud of it:)), and it brings up this debate that I've been wrestling with in my head for a long time, one that seems especially relevant given my project. Who decides what books remain in a literary canon? What is the criteria? I ask because due to my interest in these prize winners, I've read both really boring books and really interesting ones. There are some really good and interesting ones that are either out-of-print or really hard to find, and there are some really boring ones that seem to be ubiquitous. I guess, my question is, what makes a book worthy according to the population? And is it the literary population(e.g., people who read voluminously) or is it the general population? There are a few authors that I've read that I scratch my head and say "This person is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of American/Canadian lit...Why?" Hemingway would be a good example of that. He's okay, and I've certainly tried reading him(I finished The Sun Also Rises, A Moveable Feast, and have been subjected to a few short stories), but I don't see what all of the fuss is about. Catcher in the Rye is another fine example of a book that leaves me going, "why is this significant?" It's a decent novel, don't get me wrong, but...My mom once said that she thinks it has something to do with the times, which of course is something I've also heard from college professors...And there are some books that withstand that aspect(the miserableness of the rich in The Great Gatsby to me is a prime example of a situation that though relevant to the time period in which it was written is also particularly salient to any time)...I also must admit that there are books that I absolutely adore that no one else seems to, so maybe we can't just allow my opinion to count for EVERYTHING, (though it should;)) however I know I'm not the only one who dislikes strongly the overly masculine long-winded Heart of Darkness(I did see the point of it, sort of). Okay, I should stop now...I know I'm well-read and pretty democratic about how I approach literature, and I guess that's why there's other prizes out there(the more recent, more pushing the envelope-if you can do that with a national prize-Giller prize comes to mind) to read and be aware of...I can also choose to say FUCK the prizes! But, I've already started, so...All right, Winifred Bambrick and The Continental Revue. Winifred Bambrick was cool, I looked her up while I was trying to hunt down the book. She was a professional harpist who amongst other things, traveled playing for a revue/circus for a few years. Her GG winning novel was, it has been assumed, based at least slightly upon that experience. It was a pretty good book(kind of scary to read because the pages were so freakin' thin), about a traveling circus troupe of around 300 people from all different nationalities, living their lives and performing in pre-WW2 Europe. The book was published in 1946, so it was written when the war was either going on or just completed...and is interesting because it starts with events in 1938 and works forward through until 1940. When this book was published everything was still so fresh. In that regard, it reminds me of Swiss Sonata, which wrote about pre-war events whilst the war was going on. Revue and Sonata were both Canadian award winners, remember. The year that Sonata won (1938), in the States The Late George Apley won, a book about a Bostonian man. The year that Revue won(1946), the Pulitzer committee didn't even give out a prize for fiction...The GG's seem to carry about a little bit of political-ness, and are directed towards that at times. I think that the Pulitzer is highly AMERICAN and it's definitely about an AMERICAN experience, though it definitely favors the white male experience. I believe less than 1/3 of the winners of the Pulitzer are women. The GG's are slightly more women-focused, having 1/3 of the prizes won be by women, however interestingly enough, the GG's have a tendency to award to the same people numerous prizes(Margaret Laurence 2, Gabrielle Roy 2, Alice Munro 3), so I'm not really sure what that says. Okay...needing to wrap this up. Continental Revue took me a really long time to read for me(like over 2 weeks) because of the looking/interviewing for a new job...Auf weidersehen to the crappy one! Though it wasn't because it wasn't good, it wasn't that gripping either, but oh well...Bambrick did a bit of a microcosm of the world with her novel and the fact that there were all kinds of people living in a fantasy world about the upcoming war at that time(not only circus performers, pretty much all of planet Earth)becomes apparent as well. I can't say I was particularly drawn to any of the characters, but they did remind me of types of people that I know...All the acts were interesting too, and to think that at that time it was actually affordable for the everyman to see a show like that(Cirque du Soleil is really pricey)definitely makes one a teensy bit nostalgic. And, the other thing that makes one wistful is that the whole world lost its innocence then(even more than the first war), and we have never been the same as a society since, to be reminded of that through a myriad of circus performers, people who make a living out of creating a show, was at the very least ironic. One quote I particularly liked was a comment made by one of the most "I'm living in la-la land" performers, Mario. He says "'Life is like the weather. It cannot all be nice' (Bambrick 294)." And Bambrick's last line of the novel is good too..."One show is ended, but another is always beginning" (Bambrick 351). Hmmmmmm.....GGs 24, Pulitzers 21...