A Ghostly Presence Presents: Stephen Leacock to Re-Appear in Western Canada

In November and December of 1936 Stephen Leacock appeared in the flesh in western Canada for the first time. From Port Arthur and Fort William (now Thunder Bay) to Victoria and seven cities in between he regaled audiences with his humour and challenged their thinking with his ideas. People expected a humorist, and got one. They may or may not have expected a teacher and a pundit.

In October and November of 2017 Leslie Robbins-Conway and Paul Conway, who are Voyageur Storytelling of Northern Bruce Peninsula, Ontario, will represent him in presentations of his wit and ideas along the same route. They do not pretend to impersonate Stephen Leacock, only to represent him, by performing his works and talking about his ideas.

Stephen Leacock died in 1944. His presence on this “Re-Tour” will be in the spirit, as what he called a phantasm, phanogram, phanogrammatical manifestation, psycho-phantasmal phenomenon, or perhaps even a phantoid.

He himself was sceptical of all suggestions of an etherial existence in any real sense. Re-Tour audiences need not be. Stephen Leacock’s spirit remains fully vibrant among us through his fifty-three books, most of which can be found on-line, and through dedicated performers such as Leslie and Paul.

The Re-Tour will launch from Orillia on October 20th-21st, and proceed to Thunder Bay, Sioux Lookout, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary, Medicine Hat, Vancouver, and Victoria, ending back in Vancouver on November 28th. The weather in northern Ontario, the prairies, and the mountains will, of course, be glorious and snow-free at that time of year, at least some of the time. Leslie and Paul are old hands, however, and know the country.

Looking across the range of their different events, the Stephen Leacock they present will be the full one, a man of humour, as is well known, but also a man of ideas and opinions, some still relevant, some not. Times change and ideas evolve, like the living organisms they are. He himself evolved in his exceptionally energetic lifetime, from a teacher of modern languages, to a political economist, to a social-political economist, to a primitive articulation of the need for enviromental-social-political economics, a scope highly relevant to our times. His role in the progression of these ideas may be largely forgotten, but it was real.

He never pulled them all together with a catchy label. He was not that kind of thinker. He came close in 1919 when, in the shadow of World War I and its aftermath, he wrote a book called The Unsolved Riddle of Social Justice. In the “thinker” parts of their Re-Tour, Leslie and Paul, with the help of their participants, will develop the idea of a “General Theory of Unsolved Riddles”. He laid the foundations, but the edifice remains unbuilt.

In the “laughter” parts they will perform his works and tell his stories, the cream of them, the ones that ensure that however narrow his memory may become, it will never entirely die away. When at his best, he reigns supreme. Leslie and Paul have a style in performing his humorous works, which is to set them to music and perform them together, along with more conventional storytelling. Their performances are thus highly diverse.

You can find details on their web site, http://www.voyageurstorytelling.ca

Advertisements

Stephen Leacock Re-Tour Strikes Owen Sound

by Paul Conway, Voyageur Storytelling
Friday, October 6th, 2017
Stephen Leacock’s narrators are frequently being struck. “It struck me with a thrill of indescribable terror that Annerly had seen Q.” “Then it suddenly struck me that of the figures on the street, all had looked alike.” Not to mention more physical kinds of striking, as by sausages, bananas, lightning, etc.
If the audiences at our two events in Owen Sound yesterday were struck by anything except the brilliance and funny of the man, they gave no evidence. They laughed and clapped and joined in the singing and generally carried on in a most gratifying way. We were struck again, as we often have been, by what extraordinarily nice people come to our performances.
Not that everything went entirely smoothly. We were putting on a pair of firsts, both designed for our impending (a Leacock word) Re-Tour of western Canada. The whole idea began when we were struck by the coincidence (as Leacock’s characters often are) that 2017 is exactly the 81st anniversary of Stephen Leacock’s only visit to western Canada. He had reached the age of 67 in a long and brilliant speaking career without venturing west of the Lakehead.
The fact that this year also celebrates the 150th anniversary of Confederation, not to mention the 147th of Manitoba’s entry thereinto, the 146th of British Columbia’s, and the 112th of Saskatchewan’s and Alberta’s, made for a whole series of numerological coincidences, too striking to ignore.
In the afternoon we held a “Talk-and-Tell” where we unrolled for the first time our hypothesis about Stephen Leacock’s General Theory of Unsolved Riddles. It permeates his writing from his 1903 Ph.D. thesis on The Doctrine of Laissez-Faire, which launched his career as a political economist, through several striking books both academic and humorous, until it leaped into full view in The Unsolved Riddle of Social Justice in 1920. Our participants seemed struck by the ingenuity and plausibility of the hypothesis.
Then in the evening we performed, for the first time, our new storytelling concert, called “A Field of Mariposies”. A “mariposie”, in our vernacular, is a story (or song, or poem) by or about Stephen Leacock.
Leslie and I were not, if the truth be told, quite as polished as we like to be, and as we trust we will be when the Re-Tour actually launches on October 20th, in Orillia. But that didn’t seem to matter to this audience, many of them familiar with our work. “We love it,” said one to Leslie afterwards, “when you two make mistakes.” How striking is that?
We did not expect to find Leacock’s ghost hovering about on this occasion, because as far as we know he never came to Owen Sound—never came closer than Meaford, in May of 1917, on behalf of Belgian Relief.
His spirit was there, however, in the generosity and laughter of the audience, and the quite respectable collection of his books in the Owen Sound and North Grey Union Public Library, all arranged in display by the staff in the entrance-way to the hall.
We were struck by the reality that Stephen Leacock may be largely forgotten in some circles, but not there, not last night.

The Stephen Leacock Re-Tour 2017: Press Release #1

Issued during the week of September 11, 2017

Stephen Leacock’s Western Re-Tour Will Launch in Orillia

On Friday, October 20th Stephen Leacock’s “My Discovery of the West” Re-Tour will arrive in Orillia for two days of storytelling, conversation, and celebration. This event launches a much larger tour of a dozen places across western Canada until it closes with a flourish in Vancouver six weeks later.

The Re-Tour will re-trace the route of Leacock’s 1936 speaking tour, visiting Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary, Medicine Hat, Banff, Vancouver, and Victoria, before returning to Vancouver for the finale. The organizers are adding brief stops in Sioux Lookout and Nanaimo, in response to local interest.

The team for this unique literary adventure will consist of Stephen Leacock (1869-1944) himself, present in the spirit and through his works and ideas, accompanied by Leslie Robbins-Conway and Paul Conway, who are Voyageur Storytelling of Northern Bruce Peninsula, [Ontario].

In 1936 Stephen Leacock was making his first visit to western Canada. Afterward he wrote My Discovery of the West, which won the Governor-General’s award for non-fiction in 1937. For Leslie and Paul the Re-Tour will be a Re-Discovery, as they have travelled the region and visited all these places, some many times. Indeed, Paul lived in and worked across the region for twenty-eight years.

Stephen Leacock carried messages based on a hard-working lifetime of research, thinking, writing, public speaking and teaching. He also made people laugh. He complained that sometimes the laughter got in the way of the messages.

Some of those messages are now out of date, some resoundingly so. But the core of them retain their interest and usefulness today, especially as the turmoil of our time seems to gather strength, approaching that of his time. He viewed human affairs as an constantly shifting tangle of “Unsolved Riddles” through which we grope our way towards Social Justice and our individual dreams, which is the purpose of life. He presents this theory in an astonishing diversity of forms and approaches, a perpetual tour de force of literary and instructive ingenuity and wit.

Leslie and Paul’s messages are his, along with stories by and about him. They have unique ways of re-introducing audiences to this most diverse and fascinating man. In their concerts they tell some of the stories in straight-forward ways, as Leacock himself did and others have done, some they enact, and some they sing.

For the Unsolved Riddles they have invented a new form they call “Talk-and-Tell” where they will use the stories and his ideas to stimulate creative conversations for our time, confederations of entertainment and ideas well adapted Canada’s 150th.

You will find details of the Re-Tour at http://www.voyageurstorytelling.ca.

For further information or interviews contact Voyageur Storytelling
voyageur@bmts.com

Confederation-Becomes-Official Day Thoughts of Stephen Leacock

We can safely assume that Stephen Leacock would have been happy to celebrate July 1 2017, although it is not certain what he would have called it. He might have approved the Conundropian choice of name and approach, or he might not. He was a man of Unsolved Riddles. He himself might have been prepared to solve this one; we cannot, because he is not here to give us the answer.

I think we can assume he would have approved most of what the country has become in the 73 years since his death, some aspects perhaps more whole-heartedly than others. We cannot assume that he would have held the same opinions that he did away back when. He may have have entertained some wistful regret for some of the changes, but his views concerning the country were both romantic and realistic. He formed his opinions as best he could according to the realities and hopes of his time, which is not our time. He might well have re-invented himself as he went along if he had lived to be 147.

For example, he was a romantic about being British, and about Canada being a country of British and French collaboration, and about the potential of massive immigration (100,000,000 people!) in the future along the same lines as the past. He viewed Canada as a prosperous sanctuary for the surplus population of Great Britain, as it had been in the 19th Century and the first half of the 20th. The second half of the 20th revealed that Great Britain had no such surplus, and that the refugees of the world would come from elsewhere, including those parts of the former British Empire that he would have preferred to exclude.

He would have rejoiced if a British-French two-pillared Canada had further evolved as it did evolve during his lifetime. We can only guess what he would have thought of the multicultured four-pillared Canada that has evolved and is evolving since, but by looking at the essence of his thought we can make that guess a shrewd one.

I think he would have easily accepted as a practical economic necessity the emergence of immigration from the Caribbean, India, Pakistan, and other parts of the old Empire. He was an Empire tribalist, and once the need had been established, Empire immigration would certainly have seemed better than none. He might have jibbed at the ensuing social changes, including official multiculturalism, but he would not have been alone in that, even today. I think he would have got over it. I wish everybody else would too. It’s long past time.

He would have accepted further waves of immigration, of whatever kind, because he would have seen the economic benefit, which he would have tied to the continued search for social justice. He believed that a decent level of material prosperity and equality of opportunity were necessary to social justice by any modern standard, and if we believe he was wrong about that we must prove it by finding any part of our world where that is not so.

His ideas about economic development, although romantic, were not fossilized. In 1936 he concluded an article about industrial development of the North by saying: “We, speaking collectively, have for the present at least made a mess of the rest of the world. Our contriving wits and calculating selfishness ha[ve] somehow cheated us of what seemed our inheritance. Man struggles in the grasp of his own machinery. … For the North let us make it different. Let us see to it that in the new trust of the future of the North we make fewer errors than in the old.” These are not the thoughts of a mindless economic booster.

He would have had acid things to say about some side-effects of the opening of wider economic and professional opportunities for women. He might well have accepted that women should have those opportunities if they wanted them. Although he preached otherwise in his writing, even sometimes rudely, there is no sign that he ever acted otherwise in his classroom. He would not have seen any social justice in large numbers of women being effectively forced to choose between wage-labour and child-raising. He viewed maternal child-raising as valuable both economically and in the pursuit of social justice, as part of equality of opportunity.

I must admit that I am having trouble imagining what he would have thought about the search for a reconciled accommodation with indigenous people. That is a quest of such complexity, both historically and under contemporary conditions, and such a challenge to our habitual ways of thinking, that any effort to project his ideas there becomes purely speculative. We know that he craved social justice, and that he believed economic progress of some humane kind was necessary to it. We know that he believed fervently in equality of opportunity, and in education as a principal means. We know that he believed in the role of governments as balancing agents and regulators, that private enterprise and initiative, however vital and necessary, are not sufficient. We know that he valued Knowledge, Imagination, and Compassion in the pursuit of progress, and that Conversation, Negotiation and Accommodation are the tools. We also know that he held some of the prejudices of his time, and did not live long enough to see them challenged as they are nowadays.

In other words, what he might thought here is an Unsolved Riddle. Fortunately we have no need to solve it. We have an acute need to solve that Riddle as we ourselves are concerned.

We have Confederation, and have had for 150 years. It has proved durable. We are going to need more of it, and differently, before the next big celebration in 2067.

 

The Unsolved Riddle of Free Trade and Globalization

We in Canada are singularly fortunate, because when we embrace free trade and a global economy, we do not need to strain ourselves to make it an imperial project. We are simply too small. The Brits tried it until it became too expensive and too immoral to be tolerated, but still struggle to recover the glory. The Americans are thoroughly entangled, the price of the profits asserting itself constantly in lives, treasure and cancer in the soul. The Chinese will get there eventually. The Russians are clawing their way back, with moral and financial bankruptcy probable outcomes. The European experiment is an interesting one: to create an economic empire as a kind of cooperative with members instead of subjects or colonies. It’s too early to write that off; the quest for internal balance is going to be a long one.

When we deal for free trade under modern, enlightened terms of reference, we accept the necessity that the relationship must be balanced. When one or more of the parties is significantly poorer than others, then that necessity is going to bite hard, because economic imbalance within an area of free trade cannot be tolerated. It simply becomes another way to exploit, eventually just as brutal as the old ways. Hence the thrust of would-be American policy towards Mexico.

If we don’t want economic refugees from our trading partners, then we had better start investing and working for prosperity where they are, and not just for our own. And some of our own people are going to be hurt in the process. We had better look after them decently, or they will vote with their votes and the result will be a sorry spectacle. Do we really need anything more than the lessons of the recent US election?

Reflections on the Jewinski Triad, also on “Best” Canadian Writers

Today I wrote to Professor Ed Jewinski, retired from Wilfrid Laurier University, concerning an article he wrote 30 years ago: “Untestabled Inferences: Post-Structuralism and Leacock’s Achievement in Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town”, published in Stephen Leacock: a reappraisal by the University of Ottawa Press in 1986, as follows:

I have long been puzzled by the common perception that Sunshine Sketches is about Orillia, or about small Ontario towns, or anything except a figment of Leacock’s imagination. Leacock knew nothing about small towns, never having lived in one except for 6 months in Uxbridge, although he had visited and spent summer holidays in Beaverton and Orillia when his mother lived there. Six years on a failed farm in maximally unhappy circumstances can’t have made him a farm boy in any real sense, and from the age of 12 onwards he was primarily city. I could never believe he would have had the gall to write a satiric book about Orillia on the strength of 4 years of experience as a nearby summer cottager. About Sutton maybe, after the unhappy farm experience. And besides, I grew up in a small town and have worked in many more, and I couldn’t recognize any of the characters. The people in my small town, which was Huntsville, weren’t anything like the people of Mariposa.

Your article entirely changed the way I thought about the book, and as I read more of Leacock’s works, going back all the way to his Ph.D. thesis, I become increasingly convinced that the idea that we navigate perpetually through a maze of unresolved and theoretically unresolvable issues permeates not only Sunshine Sketches but his entire social, economic and political outlook. I think he is saying, over and over again, that while we must act in pursuit of humane ideals of social and economic justice, we are fated to do so without knowing whether we are doing the right thing, morally or practically, beforehand or afterwards. Whichever way we turn, the unsolved riddle remains unsolved. although progress is possible nevertheless. That’s where the laughter comes in. It is when we start taking solemn faith in certainties that we regress. Recent history would suggest he is right.

Keynes wrote The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money. I think Stephen Leacock wrote The General Theory of Fragmentation, Incompleteness and Inconclusiveness, although he never pulled it all together in such a form, leaving it appropriately fragmented, incomplete and inconclusive.

I want to play Leacock with that triad, which I will call the Jewinski Triad, in order to give continuing credit to the man who coined it. But it could also be called the Leacock Triad, and it shows up everywhere in his works. The “unsolved riddle” refers to Leacock’s 1920 book The Unsolved Riddle of Social Justice.

On another front, I stumbled over this page earlier today: https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/canada/articles/writing-canada-ten-of-the-best-canadian-literary-voices/, written by one Ellen Von Weigand. On her list are Michael Ondaatje, Eden Robinson, Joy Kogawa, Joseph Boyden, Margaret Laurence, Margaret Atwood, Mordecai Richler, Alice Munro, Yann Martel, and Gabrielle Roy. Not to invest Ellen Von Wigand’s list with more importance than it deserves, and although I have absolutely nothing against any of those fine Canadian writers, I nevertheless thought it should not go unchallenged. I commented as follows:

I am astonished that this list does not include Stephen Leacock (1869-1944), who was far and away the most read and heard Canadian writer of his day, and whose best work retains all its vitality. He published, by latest count, 1,498 short pieces in a writing career lasting 50 years (1894-1944), 622 of which were collected into books. He wrote another 23 books of history and social-economic-political commentary. He is widely celebrated as a humorist, some say Canada’s greatest, but that is only part of what he was. No Canadian writer comes anywhere close to matching the range of subjects on which he expressed ideas richly informed, intelligent, eloquent and often amusing. At his best, where he was often, he wrote extraordinarily well. Some of his opinions have not aged well, it is true, because he held some of the prejudices of his time and did not always rise above them. But on many questions of continuing importance he did, and remains, 73 years after his death, a lively source of interest and even inspiration for writers, readers, and citizens. And he himself lived a most interesting life.

A good storyteller, and a good story, as we always say at the end of our Leacock performances.