Much of this material was prepared by Simona Chiose, a producer at BookTelevision, in advance of Daniel Richler's interview with Stephen Henighan taped 3 April, 2002. What is the book's thesis in short? Stephen Henighan says that he wants to see obsessively-Canadian novels -- books that deal with free trade and the job losses of the early 90s. Henighan also says that Canadian lit writers believe that the 'human psyche [is] the only one worth exploring through prose.' But interestingly enough, Jonathan Franzen argued the exact same thing about the American novel a few years ago in Harper's. Then he went and wrote The Corrections, which arguably deals with many of the issues facing U.S. society. So what is it that makes the exclusive focus on individual psychology a particularly Canadian problem as opposed to a U.

S. or Anglo-American one? Explain what Henighan means by 'mythologize your marginalization'. Perhaps Canadian writers are not as marginalized as the Latin Americans Henighan compares them to and so the need to explore the marginalization is not as acute? What kind of history should Canadian writers engage with? Arguably, many of the books Henighan mentions, from A Good Houseto Noise, to No Small Mischiefand Fall on Your Kneesdo engage with history. What is wrong with their interpretation of history? Why is it a problem that to a great extent, Canadian writers inhabit two solitudes -- is it not up to the reader to bridge them by reading books from Quebec and the rest of Canada? How is globablization impacting on Canadian literature? Perhaps we do not name and detail all our landscape because we are secure in our identity as Canadians. Is not naming, in some ways, the act of a marginalized people, talking to the center? Are Canadian writers aware and conscious of how their Canadianness impacts on their writing? Are Canadian books not Canadian simply by virtue of being written by a Canadian? Is it a matter of style or a matter of subject matter and setting? How do other countries define Canadian writing? What do you think of big-shot prizes like the Gillers? Henighan says that the estimated $1.5 million spent on it could maybe better be spent elsewhere. Is that true or do we need the glitz to raise people's awareness of Canlit/make us feel we're as good as the Bookers. Henighan writes: 'Our obsession with prizes is one more symptom of our arch-materialist need to reduce each aspect of human existence to a commodity that can be quantified -- and priced and sold.

' Is Toronto the center of literary Canada? Even if we agree that it is, haven't cities like New York, Paris, Bombay, London, always drawn artists and writers? In other words, doesn't Canlit need the energy and community of Toronto and of its many cultures?.