photo by Deborah Samuel, via cbc.ca
If you are a book geek like me, you’ll know that last night was the long-awaited and highly publicized announcement of the prestigious Giller Prize, awarded at a glitzy black-tie Gala at the Four Seasons Hotel. Elizabeth Hay took home the honors (beating out my pick, Alissa York,) but what is perhaps more interesting is what Canada’s First lady of Literature, Margaret Atwood, brought with her to the gala. From the Toronto Star this morning:
…two of the most notable guests took a pass on that menu and instead brought their own dinner in a box.
Former Giller Prize winner Margaret Atwood and her husband, Graeme Gibson – author of The Bedside Book of Birds – quietly declined the food being passed.
The reason: They were protesting the Four Seasons’ role in a massive resort development in Grenada that threatens an endangered species: the Grenada dove.
The two toted a gym bag to the festivities and dined on their own home-made spinach and cucumber. They also drank their own sake, while others at their table (including former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson) ate the beef and drank the wine the venue provided. Apparently I’m not alone in thinking this is an odd, and perhaps convenient form of protest. From the smart folks at Quillblog:
Not to be cynical, but if Atwood and Gibson really wanted to show solidarity with the Grenada dove, wouldn’t it have behooved them to boycott the ceremony altogether? They could have put out a press release explaining their absence and got the same amount of coverage. But by picnicking they managed to make a show of their anti-establishment credentials and still retain pride of place at the literary status-symbol night of the year.
I’m not entirely sure what the bringing of their dinner in a bag was supposed to accomplish, but if it was press, I suppose I’ve proved their success merely by writing this. Thoughts?
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
10 comments
Hm. At the risk of sounding like a hater, I have to agree. What a bizarre protest - I don't understand how not eating the Four Seasons food proves anything, if you're still at the Four Seasons. (Though maybe we should confirm first that Maggie doesn't have some sort of wheat intolerance and the food thing really was a protest).
Bringing your own dinner seems so obnoxious, and maybe even a way of elevating yourself - showing off your "progressive" politics - from the others at your table who are eating that damn, dove-murdering Four Seasons food.
Posted by Thea
November 7, 2007, 1:39 PM
I'm sure she had to pay for her seat at the table, regardless of whether or not she wanted to eat. Or maybe she didn't have to pay for her ticket, cause she's Maggie and all, but then she's not really proving anything by not eating.
I'm gonna be a hater on this one. And as for the wheat intolerance; I'm sure the 4 Seasons would have gladly accomodated her, no?
Posted by Stacey May
November 7, 2007, 2:10 PM
I'm not surprised - remember, this is the woman who helped bring us the LongPen, the remote autograph-signing device that allows her to keep up her cultural and literary capital without actually having to, you know, go near the humans. Iconoclastic? Obnoxious? Way Better Than You? No doubt.
I will, however, state for the record that I think she's a fantastic writer and some of the best female protagonists ever have come from her (not so long) pen. Smart feminist sci-fi? I think I just wet my pants. So these things don't bother me so much - I'm glad she's out there being who she is.
Posted by Anna
November 7, 2007, 2:30 PM
I have to be a dissenting voice here. I think that, at times, quiet protest can be dignified and help win support. If she had boycotted the ceremony, any coverage would have been about her -- how she's a literary diva (oh, how I hate that word), and a boycott would probably have stolen some of the spotlight from Elizabeth Hay... Instead, she took an approach that upheld her beliefs and probably got some notice because of its simplicity. And perhaps the next literary gala will not be held there as a result.
I'm sure she had no part in the decision to host the event at the Four Seasons, but she was able to support the arts community AND stand up for her beliefs -- something more people should do.
Posted by Megan
November 8, 2007, 7:33 AM
> I'm sure she had to pay for her seat at the table
Nobody pays to attend the Giller. It's not a fundraiser.
Posted by DW.
November 8, 2007, 4:42 PM
Count me in with the dissenting voices, and I agree that she'd likely get trashed no matter what she did. The long pen is not about staying away from the humans, it's about avoiding unnecessary carbon emitting travel. They're environmentalists. Clearly many here are not. That's fine, but don't knock those of us who fight for those issues. As feminists you must be well aware that it's impossible to advocate for change without ticking people off. I imagine you personally are also all tired of people criticizing you for feminist activism because it doesn't fit in with what people expect from you. Ditto Ms. Atwood. You should also be above knocking other women in such a petty, shallow way. One would hope, anyway.
Posted by cg
November 11, 2007, 10:50 AM
Well, I think we need not carve up territory based on how we feel about people's actions, i.e. Atwood invented LongPen, therefore she's an environmentalist; I find LongPen kind of silly, therefore I'm not. My environmental activism obviously has to take place on a different scale than hers, as no one is likely to notice my boycott of the Four Seasons. As a matter of fact, I'm boycotting it right now! Where's the Globe & Mail? I mean, hey, maybe I'm the better environmentalist, since I've never expended carbon at any time in order to give someone my autograph.
The point is, I guess, that she's in a position to influence people, and judging from this discussion (if nothing else), it's worked, though that doesn't mean we aren't allowed to critique her means of exerting her power. And it also doesn't mean that by critiquing her, we are somehow saying she's not still really talented and admirable, or that we are somehow collaborating with The Man by (gasp) criticizing a woman.
Posted by Anna
November 12, 2007, 2:14 PM
Now that I think about it, boycotting actually isn't always a very effective way to get your point across, since it's so rigidly market-bound - like I said, there are tons of things I am boycotting right now - mostly because I can't afford them - but my lack of capital investment doesn't make the slightest difference to the company or the cause. I "boycott" bands all the time because I haven't heard of them and therefore don't buy their music. So Atwood's choice to attend the dinner and make her stand there is actually way more effective than if she hadn't gone at all.
That, however, does not at all alter the fact that I think LongPen is silly. Silly, I tell you!
Posted by Anna
November 12, 2007, 2:46 PM
I'm with Anna.
She didn't really "boycott" anything anyway. If she didn't have to pay for her meal and she didn't eat it, it's more like she's doing them a favor by saving them a couple of steaks. Her not showing up to the event would have actually made a difference to the prestige of the event - instead she attended, saved the venue a couple of steaks and some glasses of wine and some dollars. If they had a meal ready for her, she actually harmed the environment via waste, no?
It's not that I'm objecting to the intention, I'm objecting to the action.
Posted by Stacey May
November 12, 2007, 2:55 PM
Wait a sec, I actually said that what Atwood did was MORE effective than a boycott, not less. But your point about her saving Four Seasons a couple of steaks is well-taken. As is your point about agreeing with me.
Posted by Anna
November 12, 2007, 5:01 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.