E.K. Brown: A Study in Conflict (1993) by Laura Smyth Groening

Groening tells the story of E.K. Brown, his life and writing. An inspired Cornell Professor, Brown led the kind of life that television despairs over. He did little but sit and read and write. But, the significant role he played, and something Groening brings out well, was the originality of what he read and how he wrote about it in response.

Brown was the first literary critic to read Canadian poetry as Canadian poetry -- to take the mental and imaginitive leap away from British standards of universal excellence (which, not surprisingly, always favoured British texts and authors). Brown's critical model was borrowed from Matthew Arnold (one of those Brits who advocated universal standards) but modified by the American Emerson's anti-colonial defiance. Emerson detested the American tendency of his day to imitate British authors, just as Brown recognized a similarly injurious tendency amongst Canadian writers. Brown's writing, however, sought out those moments in Canadian writing when they were not imitating.

Groening's style is sharp and focussed, but many readers will be put off by her clinical air. The book is almost entirely bereft of anecdotal narratives -- most likely a result of her subject. For instance, of the war years, Brown left Cornell to write political speeches for Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King. Unfortunately for interest's sake, the two only met in person once. A topic was given discretely to Brown, who then penned a draft, adjusted to the favoured style and even words of the Prime Minister(Brown apparently compiled pages upon King's favourite words).

In another anecdote ripe with possibilities, but yet falling when green -- Brown lived in Paris in the 1920s, filled with literary culture. His friend came over, filled with enthusiasm for James Joyce (in his prime). But instead of a Callaghan-esque flirtation with the top of the game, or a Glassco-esque cut to the dirty heart of the scene, the only story of them from the period is a failed attempt to meet Edith Wharton. Leon Edel (Brown's friend) jumped and looked over Wharton's fence. Literaly.

Still, she records the cultural moment when Brown had a particular radicality, when his writing was the best thing going in his field. She does this sharply and efficiently, and provides a thorough case for Brown's originality and the innovative gesture of his reading habits.

If anything, Groening absorbs Brown's perspective too completely. Brown was not a perfect critic, even of Canadian literature of the time, and was more closely alligned with the University of Toronto writers than with the thriving experimental and modernist community underfoot. His biases can perhaps be understood as a product of his geographical isolation, not to mention his arduous schedule as a professor. This does not excuse his ignorance of active writers like W.W.E. Ross, Bertram Brooker, Louise Morey Bowman, and others, but it does perhaps explain it. Groening might have been more critical in this regard. Otherwise, the book is well researched and well written.

Brown: "A great literature supposes that writers and readers alike have a deep interest in the kind of life which is to be found where they live."