Launching LEACOCK 150~100~75: The Slug-Horn Plays the First Post

Monday, March 25th 2019: First Post here, First Post overall. (Posts will flow weekly here on Mondays.)

Well, here we are, exactly a month after the previous post, surging forward into Launch Week of LEACOCK 150~100~75. Launch Day is Thursday, March 28th. I will play appropriate fanfare on the slug-horn then. If you are wondering which slug-horn, it’s Childe Roland’s, with which he sought to challenge the Dark Tower, according to the poet Browning.

You will perhaps recall that Childe Roland, on that occasion, was surrounded by the ghosts of those who had gone before. So we will be if I have anything to say about the matter. At least for blogging purposes I can call spirits from the vasty deep, and they will come when I do call for them. Leading the parade, or chorus, or whatever they are, will be Stephen Leacock’s ghost, known as Leacock Stephantom, or simply Sephantom. We can’t expect to see him , however, until Thursday, the 75th anniversary of his death. I will make sure that he checks in here next Monday.

We should also draw attention to the likelihood that this week, or thereabouts, is the 150th anniversary of his conception,—his birthday being December 30th,—although his parents did not record a specific date. Perhaps they were sufficiently vigorous and devoted at that stage to allow for several eligible dates. Later on they gave up, but not before a further eight children. They already had two when Stephen arrived.

If you are interested in all these goings on, please remember to keep in touch with, where the story of proceedings will be told and always up to date. Up-dates on Twitter (@conwaypaulw) and Facebook (Voyageur Storytelling) will appear on Thursdays. Postings will appear on the other two blogs (Mariposa’s, and my own) on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, respectively. It may take a few weeks for all this to come together and shake down. I will do my best to keep up the pace until December 30th.

I leap into these nine months of anniversary blogging and posting with two purposes in mind: first, to revive a full awareness of all that Stephen Leacock was. I profess to be aware of the breadth if not the entire depth. I am aware in particular that he was an opinionated man with a difficult personality. I am also aware that his accomplishment was enormous, as far as I know not matched quantitatively until Northrop Frye came along, and for breadth of quality not even then. Depth is another matter. I am not aware of any Canadian writer who did as much over such a wide field, and if there is one please tell me who it is. I would be most grateful to learn more.

My other principal purpose is to re-write Stephen Leacock’s almost forgotten book, The Unsolved Riddle of Social Justice, written in 1919, published first as a series of newspaper articles from August to October that year, and as a book in January 1920. We have not solved the unsolved riddle of social justice, not by a long shot, and to suggest that it is a moving target should not remove the incentive to try. I intend to probe its unsolved riddleness, find out how deep it runs,—I believe it may well run deep, indeed down into the very heart of the matter,—and explore how we can cope so as to move resolutely and steadily towards the goal and not become discouraged. I believe that Stephen Leacock started a line of thought about social justice that needs to be continued.

We think of Stephen Leacock as a humourist. Much more than that, however, he was a teacher. We may do ourselves harm if we assume we have nothing to learn from him.

I intend to conduct this probe on-line, in the hope that you and many others will respond, using the comments facility on this blog or the others, or writing to me by e-mail:

Stephen Leacock began The Unsolved Riddle of Social Justice with this statement: “These are troubled times.” Since I believe that to be one line of the book that is not out of date, I will start there next week.

Posted by Paul Conway, Voyageur Storytelling, producer of LEACOCK 150~100~75.



In Search of the Essential Stephen Leacock

This could be a very brief post, because there is no essential Stephen Leacock.

Unless, of course, we take his “Unsolved Riddles” trope as somehow capturing it, which is in effect what we are doing for his Sesquicentennial, at least until someone comes up with a better idea. We embrace both the singularity and the plurality of the man.

In how many ways was he plural? Let us count them.

His parents must have been believers in pluralism, because they had eleven children, of which Stephen was the third.

He was raised in plural environments, first as a village lad in England, then as a farm boy in Georgina Township, Ontario, then as a schoolboy in Toronto at Upper Canada College. From there he went on to study at the University of Toronto, to teach briefly in Uxbridge and much longer at UCC, then on to the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in Political Economy, which was not a plural discipline in his day but probably is now.

He then taught for the rest of his working life at McGill University in Montreal, but overcame the singularity of that by teaching and writing academically in both Economics and Political Science, and by creating for himself three other careers as a writer of humour, a public speaker, and a public intellectual concerned with all kinds of things with no regard for academic boundaries. His innate pluralism shines through in his writing and speaking perhaps more than in any other aspect of his life.

He wrote 53 books and some 1,500 “pieces” (many of the latter appearing also in books) and gave some 750 speeches that we know about.

He had one wife, one son, and in later years after his wife died, one special female friend. He had many male friends, although it appears only one especially close one.

He felt some sense of belonging in three countries — Canada, England, and the United States — although not completely in any one of them. He felt a strong loyalty to one empire, which he excoriated on every possible occasion for being less than it could and should be.

I think it is fair to say that he had four homes, three in Montreal (his house, McGill, and the University Club), one near Orillia. The nature of his relationship to Orillia has caused such a plethora of interpretations as to be almost a pluralism in its own right.

His reading was pluralistic to extremes.

He was a liberal social democrat in political ideology, attached to the Conservative party. In Canada this is not as pluralistic as it sounds.

He drank copiously, but whether of blended or single-malt scotch is unknown. Probably he drank whatever was available, which is a pluralistic approach.

He is widely known nowadays for the creation of one place — Mariposa — which has however been characterized (by Ed Jewinski) as a locus of “fragmentation, incompleteness and inconclusiveness”, which is a pluralistic way to be. He himself said that Mariposa is “about seventy or eighty” “real towns”, which is very plural indeed. It has been subject to plural interpretations, of which only one is correct: mine.

The degree of pluralism manifested in Stephen Leacock himself remains, therefore, yet another Unsolved Riddle.


Sesquicentennial Ho! (After a Pause)

For the past nineteen years summers have been anything but relaxing for Leslie and me. In 1999 we left Yellowknife in June, drove to Ontario to begin re-establishing ourselves at my father’s place in Puslinch Township southeast of Guelph, including moving all our stuff from Yellowknife and all my stuff from Edmonton. Then we went to Halifax for the annual meeting of Storytellers of Canada. All that took care of that summer. In 2000 Leslie’s mother died while we were in the midst of full-time palliative home care for my father and management of his land and household. In 2001 we were winding up his estate and looking around for a place to live. We bought our new home on Bruce Peninsula that August. Then from 2002 until 2016 we performed our annual summer season of Country Supper Storytelling Concerts, a full-time job from May to September. Last year we spent the entire summer preparing for our Fall tour of western Canada, called Stephen Leacock’s “My Discovery of the West” Re-Tour, which launched on October 19th with previews in the preceding two weeks. Our friends and neighbours tell us that summer is a fine time on the Peninsula. We hardly know as much from our own experience.

This year is going to be different. We are going to take the summer off. This will therefore be the last posting to this blog until early September, when preparations for the Stephen Leacock Sesquicentennial will start to roll in earnest. It launches March 28 2019, the 75th anniversary of Leacock’s death, and runs for 277 days until December 29th, the 150th anniversary of his birth. The pace will be hot.

The entire idea began with the notion that Stephen Leacock prepared the ground and planted the seed for a General Theory of Unsolved Riddles which, in the broad field of Canadian political economy, compares in importance with the Keynesian General Theory of Employment Interest and Money. The Great Depression and World War Two slowed the growth of this vital plant, but grow it did, coming into flower in the decades after the war, which Leacock did not live to see.

Cycles, theories and ideologies have come and gone but in very general terms what we have created in Canada (and other countries) since the war is a complex economic, social and political organism that is part liberal democracy, part social democracy, part institutional democracy, and part communitarian democracy, all these parts being partially realized. I would call it a pluralistic democracy. I see it as resting on an underbed of democratic and legal arrangements in constant need of cultivation and refreshment, and another of financial institutions and practices some of which are perpetually half-starved (the public ones, i.e. taxes) with others relying on an unhealthy amount of speculation verging on outright gambling. Somehow this intricate ecosystem remains afloat, and long may it do so.

I believe that we can use the General Theory of Unsolved Riddles, when we understand it fully, to explain how a pluralistic democracy — a democratic political-social-environmental-cultural-communitarian-institutional economy — works and how we can make it work better, which begins with thinking about it better. It won’t be a neat set of diagrams and formulas, but an organic n-dimensional matrix of some kind that we will learn to navigate deliberately and rationally. Right now, in its early years, we walk blind with halting steps, ad hoc-ly feeling our way along and following our noses. We can do better than that. But we will have to give up the dream of seeing our way forward, because light moves in straight lines and there is nothing straight-line about this creature. Sound is more surrounding, but the air-waves are full of it and the noise is deafening. My money is on the intellectual equivalent of an olfactory sense, picking up the drifting molecules of data and making sense of them the way a dog does, or a bear even better.

What I am saying in these tangled metaphors is that we have created for ourselves an amazing maze of Unsolved Riddles floating around on all sides, all of which are there for good reason or as by-products of good reason. Our capacity to create them has out-run our capacity to detect and comprehend them, or to imagine what they would look like if they were Solved Riddles. Stephen Leacock, in his copious writings on education and in his entire literary orientation, proposed a Tetrad of Knowledge, Imagination, Compassion and Humour. I think that’s a good place to start, and that is where the Leacock Sesquicentennial will start in September.

Have a good summer!

Posted May 28th 2018, 304 days before the Sesquicentennial Launch.

Playing Stephen Leacock: The Unsolved Riddle of Pipelines for the Oil Sands

This morning I am wondering what Stephen Leacock would have made of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Controversy, also what might be made of it by application of the General Theory of Unsolved Riddles. The Controversy is hot this week, having branched out in the David Suzuki Honorary Degree Controversy, and if that doesn’t bring Stephen Leacock immediately to mind, I don’t know what would. I am referring, of course, to the spectacle of an angry bunch of blinkered people accusing David Suzuki of being blinkered, and wanting him to be denied an honorary degree (of which he has many), a recognition that is in fact nobody’s business except the conferring institution (in this case the University of Alberta) and the conferee. The world at large cares nothing for honorary degrees, and neither I suspect does David Suzuki. He doesn’t need any more. His reputation is firm.

I find it difficult to answer the first part of my question, which is why I put the second. Stephen Leacock was certainly an strong advocate for resource development as a means to prosperity, employment, and well-being. He usually sided with the federal government on constitutional issues, believing that provincialism undermined the sense of national purpose that he so acutely desired. He would have been sympathetic to the federal government’s claim that that pipeline serves the national interest. On the other hand, he urged (in his 1936 article “Reflections on the North”) that we “see to it that in the new trust of the future of the North we make fewer errors than in the old.” He would have been sympathetic to the counter-claim that that pipeline is simply a repetition of the old errors. Judging by what he said about the landscapes of British Columbia during his 1936-37 tour he would have been appalled at the idea of their pollution by anything as noxious as diluted bitumen. He might well have listened to those who argue that the pipeline is no longer needed by the market as a whole, however much it may serve narrower interests. As he assimilated the lessons of the Great Depression he would not have been impressed by any analyses of economists, for or against. In short, he might very well have consigned this pipeline to the realm of Unsolved Riddles, and been content simply to define the problem.

If he proposed a decision it might possibly look like this: Let private enterprise and capital build the pipeline if they think it worthwhile, but regulate them firmly to make sure they act not only in their own interest but in the public interest. He would have seen nothing wrong with imposing stringent risk-reducing conditions on such a project.

The second part of my question therefore becomes the more interesting. Now Stephen Leacock did not develop the General Theory of Unsolved Riddles, although he first raised the possibility. Development will, I hope, become an accomplishment of the Stephen Leacock Sesquicentennial in 2019. I don’t want to get too far ahead of the conversation, but I am tempted to practise on the Trans Mountain Pipeline.

I suggest, for starters, that the General Theory might well contain the following three principles, applicable to this case:

  1. That where the resource development clashes with stewardship for the environment, as it almost inevitably does with large projects, the result is an Unsolved Riddle.
  2. That Unsolved Riddles should be analyzed in the light of the Leacock Tetrad of Knowledge, Imagination, Compassion, and Humour. Under all the complexity and contradictions of contemporary conditions, I believe that this Tetrad is what “Reason” means. We are being “reasonable” when we think this way.
  3. That such analysis is unlikely to yield a clear decision. To make the best decision we can under the circumstances will require Conversation, Negotiation, and Mutual Accommodation, leading not to a “Solution”, that being by definition out of reach, but to a Resolution of the Riddle.

I say Accommodation, and not Compromise, because I believe this to be one of those situations where both sides are right. Prosperity is not a trivial pursuit and is in fact one of the prerequisites for social justice. There seems little doubt that the Trans Mountain Pipeline will contribute to prosperity, at least for some. When I look at my own way of life, which is comfortable but not opulent, I am in no doubt about my reliance on fossil fuels, and while I see many possibilities for reducing it, I think it will remain for the foreseeable future. Neither is stewardship of the environment a trivial pursuit. Just last Fall I passed through the country where that pipeline will cross, and the idea of one of those river valleys or that coastline being flooded with diluted bitumen chills my blood. I know that the pipeline system on the whole, all 75,000 kilometres of it, is remarkably safe. I also know that it is not perfectly safe, that accidents will occur. We have seen them and we know how terrible they can be. We do well to be afraid of them. We also know that our west coast is an earthquake zone, and may well elevate our fears accordingly.

Let us see, very briefly and in a preliminary way, what the Leacock Tetrad yields us:

Knowledge: While many will argue, quite rightly, for an “evidence-based” decision, I fear we will find the evidence conflicting, at least as it concerns the fundamental conflict between perceived economic benefits and environmental risk-avoidance. A careful look at evidence might tell us whether the pipeline is necessary under current market conditions. If no longer necessary it therefore must be classified as a boondoggle and should not be built. Evidence would also tell us whether it has become a symbolic issue in one or more partisan or other arenas of narrowly defined interest. If so, we should treat all arguments for or against with extreme care, as being possibly propaganda rather than reasonable conversation.

To be clear in my beliefs: There is nothing unreasonable in being either for or against this pipeline. The controversy relies on differing subjective weights assigned to both probabilities and magnitudes of perceived benefits and risks, both private and public.

Imagination: I think that Imagination has two obvious roles in this conversation. First, everyone engaged in it needs to imagine that the others, regardless of their points of view, may be right in some important sense. We usually have no difficulty seeing how people are wrong. We struggle often with the other. If both sides in a controversy can see the rightness in the other side, then the whole tone of the conversation changes and the search for solutions or accommodations can become creative. Seeing only the wrongness makes that much more difficult. Second, both sides need to start imagining what a creative solution or accommodation might look like. I will return to this suggestion.

What we don’t need are people on one side of the issue imagining cornucopias of benefits and a complete absence of disasters, and an equally stubborn bunch on the other imagining few benefits and horrible disasters. Imagination of those kinds contributes nothing positive.

Compassion: I am prepared to accept that everyone in this conversation — I hope it will become a conversation — is being compassionate to someone. Those in favour are being compassionate towards the people who need jobs and those who need the products. These are important. They are also being compassionate towards the legion of concerned shareholders, who might suffer a diminution in their rates of return, and in a broad sense towards the tax-payers of Alberta who might otherwise have to contemplate the imposition of a sales tax and its resulting trauma. To assess these importances on a  national scale of weights requires careful calculation. Those against are being compassionate towards the natural environment, certainly, and towards all those whose livelihoods and well-being would be damaged or destroyed in the event of an accident. These too are important, and increasingly so, as the power of our machines and the size and ambition of our projects steadily increase our capacity to inflict damage.

Humour: This element is Stephen Leacock’s distinctive contribution to the Art of Deciding What To Do. He defined Humour not merely as something that makes us laugh, although it often does that, but as the kindly contemplation of the incongruities of life and the expression thereof. Well, what could be more incongruous than the sight and sound of a great public institution like the University of Alberta seeking to recognize, also bask in the reflected glory of, an aging celebrity while defending its right to do so on the grounds of academic freedom, coupled with the accompanying howls of outrage with demonstrations and cuttings-off of donations from and by those who don’t agree with him, further coupled with the pomposities of politicians seeing some advantage to them in taking one side or the other? “Tempest in a teapot” is the image that hops to mind. Much deeper, however, is the sheer incongruity of the whole approach that we, the people, our governments, our politicians, and our beloved news media, are taking to this whole vexed question which is either important, in which case our whole approach is grotesquely inappropriate, or not, in which case it is stupid. Either way, to contemplate it with kindness, and to laugh at ourselves for the fools we are, might well stimulate our imaginations to work as they must if we are to find the best available resolution.


I would like to suggest that the conversation necessary to resolve this particular Unsolved Riddle might reasonably proceed on the following lines:

  1. That as long as the financing of this pipeline remains in the private sector — at least to the extent normal for such projects — we can safely leave the financial and micro-economic aspects of this decision to the private financiers. As soon as they begin asking for public participation, however, we should consider whether that means that the economic benefits are deteriorating. In that case we can legitimately give them less weight in our our own wider calculations which necessarily take in environmental, social, macro-economic, national, provincial, regional, long-term developmental, widely strategic, public-interest, and other considerations about which the financiers are unlikely to be concerned. After all, arguments for a pipeline are largely economic — whether the viewpoint is national or Albertan. This is not a great enterprise of public art, or even wide-use infrastructure like a highway, railroad, airport, electrical or communication system, etc. It is not proposed in order to make oil available for domestic use. It is designed to move bitumen from mine sites onto ships, for transport overseas.
  2. The argument being made by Alberta, that being a land-locked province in a largely sea-coasted confederation the problem of getting its products to market is a constitutional one, is important, but may not apply in this case. The question here concerns getting one particular product to market — diluted bitumen — which, given its composition, must be considered a dangerous good. The constitutional argument being raised by British Columbia is equally valid, because Alberta wants to move not just the occasional shipment but a massively huge quantity of the stuff every day for years. I think that both provinces would have the right to be equally offended if a decision were rammed down its throat. Since the decision to build or not to build is, in its present form, an either-or decision, then the constitutional argument is self-cancelling.
  3. I believe that the contributions of Knowledge (with one important exception) and Compassion in this riddled conversation are largely unhelpful, because equally strong in both directions. Given the uncertainty and subjectivity involved, people should be perfectly entitled to interpret the evidence differently without imputation of ill will. We must needs rely therefore on Imagination. A modest application of Humour, by contemplating each other with some kindness or even laughing at our collective ritualized mutual intransigence, will allow us to move the conversation into the imaginative realm.
  4. Or maybe Knowledge can help, if we look at the important exception. I remember attending a talk by a senior executive of either Syncrude or Great Canadian Oil Sands, as it was then called, back in February of 1974, in which he proudly showed us two vials of oil-sands product, one raw bitumen and the other synthetic crude of high quality. Even then they knew how to make the latter out of the former, the latter being a clean form of a product that we move around through pipelines all the time, hither and yon, through all kinds of terrain. Occasionally there are accidents, to be sure, but they are rare and largely containable. Even the occasional serious one, like the recent spill into the North Saskatchewan River, is nothing like what the same phenomenon would be if the effluent were diluted bitumen. There may be risks in moving synthetic crude, but they are the same risks as we take in moving crude oil generally, and we seem to find them tolerable. I read that 40% of oil sands and heavy oil production is now up-graded to synthetic crude. Is it unreasonable for us to imagine 100%? If 40% is possible, and affordable, then so is 100%, or at least, if anyone wants to persuade us otherwise they should show us the numbers.
  5. Affordable too, I am sure, are measures necessary to lower the risks of leakage, breakage, and spillage to acceptable levels, which should be zero in those places where accidents would do severe damage, such as river valleys and coastlines. There are places along that route, including the sea lanes beyond the pipeline, where accidents simply cannot be allowed to happen, where zero risk is the only acceptable level. Pipelines, transfer stations, and ships can be made to meet that standard, at a cost of course. If the cost is deemed too high for the value of the product, then the project is uneconomic. Period. The idea that it should be made “economic” by infusions of public funds, beyond what is normal, is completely unacceptable under these circumstances.

There. The General Theory of Unsolved Riddles, at least as applied here, got Alberta a Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion carrying synthetic crude from the oil sands through British Columbia under high technical standards backed by tough regulations to lower the risk of accidents, totally preventing them in especially sensitive areas. Did it get us anywhere, here in the blog? Not likely. Could it get us anywhere, if transported out of the blog and into a public discussion?

I am sure this resolution has been proposed by others. Why are we not hearing about it? In the early years it was the standard plan for the transport and sale of oil-sands and heavy oil. What happened?

What do you think?


Posted April 26-27 2018, 336-5 days before onset of a Stephen Leacock Sesqui-cum-triaquarteria-centennial in 2019.