The nearly monopolistic Canadian bookseller is not pretending that it serves the same institutional role that it did two decades ago. And we no longer care.
"Nobody goes to Chapters/Indigo because they want to buy books. They go because they want to be the sort of people who spend time in Chapters/Indigo. Regardless of whether or not the books they buy are actually read, you better damn well bet they are going to be displayed. "
One of the best things I have read recently. Thank you.
Every institution in the country (media, courts, academia, military, government, civil service, ... - the list goes on) has decided to go all in on censorship and control of discourse to conform to the rulers' narrative. Since Canada was always governed by a cozy Laurentian elite, this doesn't take any kind of conspiracy, just natural dislike of outsiders without any countervailing sense of noblesse oblige. As you say, Indigo at least has the profit motive as a kind of justification for dropping any claim to institutional status.
The only answer is top to bottom restructuring of all the institutions, including eliminating and rebuilding from scratch wherever possible.
Part of the problem is that the Laurentian elite used to be divided into two-ish groups, the Liberals and the PCs. They disagreed according to Oxford debating rules. Now, the elite is a monolith of one opinion with everything and everyone else shunted as knuckle draggers. And those knuckle draggers are going to tip over the elite ship in due course.
This is why Poilievre's stance on firing the governor of the BOC, defunding the CBC, and ending the media subsidy are good - CBC and the entire Canadian media should go through bankruptcy, BOC needs a top down housecleaning. (Or maybe a complete replacement - stand up a copy, with new personnel top to bottom, then pass a statute transferring authority?)
And we need a PM who is willing to kick over the applecarts.
Should? LOL When the Prime Minister and his lackies start interfering in the rule of law is when its a Banana Republic. Wilson Raybould is proud to say she is guilt free in that but unfortunately Trudeau and his friends in the PMO's office are not. You need to understand that when the Prime Minister of this country ignores completely the Constitution, the Rights and Freedoms of the people and interferes in our judicial system is when we are a Banana Republic.
During the convoy, Justin Ling was basically a propagandist for the view that the convoy was an evil Nazi horde. Not a journalist imo but someone desperate to get invited to the good parties.
Did Ling misrepresent the convoy? I've read a lot of his stuff, listened to a lot of interviews and I'm pretty sure Ling knows of what he writes.
But besides Lawton, there are dozens and dozen of books about those damn trucks. Good on Andrew if sales are good. More money online anyway. Even if it's marked down % 16 on Amazon. Yeah, I can't see the convoy crowd wandering into Indigo to Lawton's book and staying to peruse the titles on the shelves.
I miss my bookstores. Pre Chapters/Indigo there were bookstores everywhere. Little ones sometimes two only a short distance from each other. The last time I was in Indigo Books was at least 10 years if not more. Closer to 15. I think it was Easter, there were the most precious bunnies and note paper and crap...it was horrible. I don't fit the demographic I guess. I don't like to buy from Amazon but as there is only one new book, bookstore in the town up from me, 20k ,and nothing in my town but a couple of surprisingly good used book stores where I have to back every week in case something good comes in. But it is not the same.
I remember something about Heather Reisman's decision to not carry Mein Kampf. I had read it after I took it out of the library and didn't plan on buying a personal copy. She and her husband are Jewish which could have something to do with it. I can understand that. We will never have those lovely little book stores that seemed to know what you wanted.
I ran into an article about "Duthie Books" (A real bookstore) in Vancouver, on Robson St. Some of you might know it. It opened in 1957 and closed in 2010. Jay Clarke aka Michael Slade the writer of the most gruesome, bloody, horrible and fascinating murder mysteries you are likely to get your hands on really did get his start there. Michael Slade is actually several writers including Jay Clarke and his daughter.
“Fifty years have passed since Bill and Binky encouraged that young writer (do you think that goes on today in the big box stores? Ha!)”
Stay in your lane, Terry. Nobody replied to your comment on this thing and you just responding to others to get a rise out of them is....sad. So sad. Turn your computer off this long weekend and reflect (you won't, you'll clap back at me somehow but, guess what? My computer will be off).
I go there to buy books. Or, wait, have I missed something? Might I have caught my reflection in a window, discovered that I was posing, one hand thoughtfully on chin, the other prominently holding up the Penguin for Suetonius' "The Twelve Caesars" for all to see? And looked around the store to see we were all posing for each other, Performing Smartness and Sophistication?
Don't be silly, Jen, that's the goofiest thing I've ever read from you, pathetically easy to disprove. Nearly everybody there is buying what's always popular: crime and spy and action novels, self-help and wellness.
Also, I can't think of a single friend who "displays" their books on coffee tables or living-room walls to show off their au-courant braininess. Except me, with Mike Myer's "Canada" on the table, if that counts. And the atlases are there because I still haul them out when the TV show goes to weird places. My library mainly reveals my weakness for SF and fantasy.
Nope: why would you go to a bookstore to look smart and get smart decor, when you can just Perform Smartness on Twitter? Journalists are addicted to it for precisely that reason: a Twitter bon mot can boost a career.
And how about a TheLine shout-out to Justin Ling for a fair and civil interview with Lawson, from a journo on the other side of the conversation?
We've got books all over our house, and I'm not too ashamed to admit that the ones in the most prominent locations are meant to a) look good, and b) present a more flattering curated view of what we read (trashy paperbacks can stay in the basement, thanks.) Sadly, I don't think I've bought a book at a physical bookstore in a long time. Our house is cluttered with them, and we never feel like we can throw them out. Instead, we've embraced e-readers. I'd guess my wife buys and reads more books than ever, but we don't need to add more bookcases...
My favourite book facts are, that ebooks hit 20% of the market and stuck, who knows why; and that the ebooks,unlike EVERY other computer-related product, are much preferred by the old, more than the young.
If you're going hiking, camping, or heading up to the cabin, e-readers are fantastic. Hundreds of books on one compact, lightweight device; 30-40 hours of battery life; waterproof, plus a backlight so you can read after dark without a flashlight. My wife loves hers for the adjustable font size too. However, she's adamant she does NOT need reading glasses!!
I love my computers, hate my phone, and simply could not get into the e-reader. My granddaughter let me try her's out but it was like golf, somehow wrong. Audio books are good and even my trashy paperbacks have a home with the high brow stuff.
When Chapter's opened in Vancouver we went to check it out. Beautiful wood everywhere and about a million people milling around. Everyone wanted to love it but the writing was on the wall. Indigo was the punctuation mark.
It's been years since I bothered with Indigo because they like fantasy, or they have identified the demographic that does, and next to no sci-fi. I will read almost anything, very little fantasy though, but half a doz "curated" sci-fi is lame. Worse than lame.
I have friends that do just that, pose their books. One friend only wants hardcovers, paperbacks are trashy. She used to read a lot but I think it's all for show now. Another friend leaves only Architectural Digest about. Some of her books are to match the pillows. She's crazy!
Jen is correct. Many not do have an honest relationship with their books.
You nailed it..."the convoy itself remain[s] a common shibboleth within the established cultural milieu".
How DARE the riff-raff create a populist and globally visible symbol of discontent with the way we run things? Why, it's just off-putting and undignified is what.
Tom S, as an apologist for the convoy, would you be prepared to condemn the 24/7 horn-honking and diesel exhaust, the intimidation and threats, the blatant disregard for the right of Ottawa citizens to live their lives in peace and quiet?
I might agree with you that many of the convoy protesters had some genuine beefs and just wanted someone to listen to them without being dismissed as a bunch of know-nothings (leaving aside the fact that the leadership of the convoy was highjacked by some dangerous people). But there was a lot more going on than the airing of a few grievances.
So many convoy supporters are a little too self-satisfied for my liking. They refuse to admit that these so-called freedom-fighters had no qualms about taking away the freedoms of everyone else.
Neil, Tom has spoken for himself on your points; I will speak for myself in respect of your comment.
I would not at all describe myself as an apologist for the convoy but I had great sympathy with their aims.
As Tom points out, all protests are, by their nature, a disruption to someone. For example, if the staff at your favorite grocery store strike and management chooses to keep it open you have to decide whether or not to cross the picket lines. It matters not if the union is immensely greedy or if management is totally unreasonable: you still have to decide whether to cross that picket line or go to a less convenient store. The point is that the protesters / strikers are using your inconvenience as a weapon in their protest / strike. That is their right.
If it were me, the honking would have stopped between, say, 10PM and 6AM. The protesters made their own choice in that regard and, again, that is their right.
I absolutely, totally, irrevocably [sufficiently strong adverbs?] agree with Tom's description of JT's "performance" (for performance it was) in respect of this demo as being petulant. Similarly, his description of the authorities (in)actions is dead on.
You trot out the idea of the convoy being "highjacked" by "dangerous people" but you don't tell us - well, neither do the authorities tell us - about the gun battles that went on; the armed militia that was taken down by the OPP / Ottawa police / army; the gunboats that were sailing into Ottawa on the (frozen) Rideau Canal. of course, there were no such incidents or any similar incidents. In fact, the only "dangerous people" who were arrested were two people who had the temerity to believe in an old fashioned (and now out of date) concept that the Governor General could dismiss the Prime Minister - an archaic but historic concept. [Perhaps you want all citizens of Canada to take university level courses to better understand how government (doesn't) work in Canada.] Specifically, to which other "dangerous people" do you refer? And please do be specific and please do advise why those "dangerous people" were not arrested and charged.
Ah, yes, self satisfied. And, what, in particular is my sin to which you refer? Oh, you refer to "taking away the freedoms of everyone else." Please refer to paragraph three above. And, please also look in the mirror when you throw around the descriptive of "self satisfied" when you are inconvenienced because perhaps then you will understand how so many of us in this wretched country have felt over the last number of years. Perhaps that makes you "self satisfied?"
Neil, you should also consider the Charter of Rights provides rights to those with whom you disagree. Odious, no? The nerve of "those people" to think differently than you!!!
And finally, yes, Neil, I agree with Tom that we do certainly await for your outrage when railway lines are blocked, forestry workers are attacked with chainsaws, construction equipment is blown up and so forth. Please try not to be so self satisfied when you think that we in the regions outside the Ottawa - Toronto - Montreal triangle are "deserving" of all that "inconvenience" and, instead, think of the specific violence that DID / DOES occur. Oh, yeah, violence that is defined in the Criminal Code; unlike the "violence" in Ottawa that resulted in charges of mischief.
Well you're obviously spoiling for a fight. I’ll simply note that your dismissal of the weeks of real distress experienced by the residents of Ottawa, well-documented in the media, as mere inconvenience speaks volumes.
I like it when people think differently than me. I don’t like it when they use the kind of intimidation we saw in Ottawa to impose their thinking on me.
Ah, so I suppose that I am to infer that you very much accept that people think differently than you unless they are charged with mischief and they then have to spend more than 50 days in jail without bail when even murderers get bail.
And, the idea that intimidation is a horn honking. Bosh! Distress? I am quite certain.
Uncomfortable? Certainly. Unkind? Yup. Intimidation? Not whatsoever. Legal, absolutely. Unless someone obtains an injunction - which a young woman did and she successfully dealt with the horns in her area. So, what was the problem with other residents of Ottawa in not taking such action, hmmm?
Disagree with most of what you say here but I would just like to point out to you and everyone else you says "mischief" as if it was something children do. Scoff all you like but it can result in anything from a small fine to life imprisonment depending on the severity of the mischief. A criminal record, fines, probation and/or jail time are all a serious possibilities.
I live near the TCH, the Canada wide marshalling area for the Freedom Convoy. Many Canadians in Ottawa and areas nearby that were inconvenienced by the take over of their streets need to lift their heads up and see what was going on all across the country.
When the Convoy passed through my area, I stumbled upon the activity by accident and found the assembly to be well organized, respectful and wanting the thru traffic to be able to continue on without hassle. But the amazing thing was the crowds on the side of the road cheering them on. Old, young and in between. Moms and Dad’s and kids of all ages. The support from grassroots people is the undeveloped story line of all, and should give pause to the media and eastern Canadians to wonder WHY? Why are so many ordinary people cheering this Convoy on?
There are many reasons I suppose, but a central theme is a visceral backlash (and message) being directed at the governing class in Ottawa who aren’t good listeners and have been going out of their way to make life hard for anyone who isn’t a Liberal supporter.
The Convoy became the conduit of frustration from people who are fed up, and declaring the EA and freezing assets of participants underscores the severity of the problem.
I need to be clear: I didn’t join the Convoy, nor did I contribute anything other than good will toward the effort.
As I wrote elsewhere, I think the Convoy was undermined by its amateurishness and the organizers stumbled into such a dug in presence on the streets of Ottawa they failed to articulate to their supporters or anyone else how to bring things to a conclusion before they burned up all their goodwill.
Darcy, if this is a sortof-apology, there's no need. Sounds like you took some flak for your "good will". And, by the way, "protests" are almost (again by definition) amateurish.
I didn’t have any skin in the Freedom Convoy action, so any flak I receive is minuscule compared to people who were jailed without bail and had assets frozen.
And to think that the genesis of discontent started with political calculations that used vaccine mandates as an election wedge. People can cuss the Freedom Convoy up and down, but aren’t able to see how we were all used by the Liberals. It’s pretty despicable politics to pit citizens against each other over personal health choices. The Liberals are still clinging to overreaching policies on trains, planes and border crossings and the only remedy will be negative opinion polls.
Neilster, protests are (almost by definitiion) intrusive...and our Charter protects "freedom of expression" and "freedom of peaceful assembly". So far as I can determine, there is no right to "peace and quiet"--in Ottawa or anywhere else. The Freedom Convoy was both an "expression" and "peaceful" so, no, I do not condemn it.
That the constant horn-honking was hugely annoying, you have my agreement on that.
But the Prime Minister's dismissive petulance and the overwhelming ineptitude in Ottawa's administration and police force contributed much more the duration of the annoyance than anything from the Freedom Convoy.
I believe the claim about the convoy being "highjacked by some dangerous people" emminanted from someone extremely thin skinned...or is totally bogus ("misinformation" in government-speak).
If your interpretation of this response is "a little too self-satisfied" then so be it.
I await your outrage when next the Indians hijack the railway lines, the tree huggers again attack BC forestry workers with chainsaws and when BC whack jobs riot again at the Stanley Cup. Now THOSE protests...took away real freedoms.
Crankypants (I luv that handle), there is no constitution prohibition either. But there are probably lots of municipal laws that cover vehicle blockages. Ottawa administrationo ran from those decisions.
Yes, derogation of duty on many levels. But we know why, don’t we? The police were afraid of provoking the mob that was spoiling for a confrontation with the authorities, any authorities, all the while hiding behind their bouncy castles and hot tubs and children in attendance. Who knew what was in the parked trailers? Guns, plastic explosives, fertilizer bombs, could have been anything.
Pat, we agree on the continuous horn honking. However, we're all benefitting from 20:20 hindsight. Remember, our PM ran away and hid. That caused him a lot of support also.
Used to be a big fan of Chapters, then it became Indigo. It got a bit pretentious since then. I go to a book store to see books, not be part of a 'brand'. (now I just browse online stores and download to an ereader)
OTOH, USED bookstores are still a little shop of wonders. If I buy a physical book, its from here. I can waste a tremendous amount of time in one of these.
My take (if I'm reading this correctly) is that as 'mainstream culture' (whatever that is) has broadened, the former arbitrators of what is meaningful in that culture have become less relvant. It isn't that Indigo has changed -- it's that Canada has changed.
But, isn't this a good thing? It means that a LOT of voices that wouldn't have been heard twenty years ago have a voice. It means that the public discourse is broader and more varied. While that means cranks going on about chips in vaccines have a voice, so do Indigenous Leaders to cite one example. We're in the middle of having a Pope apologize for the Church's role in Residential Schools, which seems to be a great example of a narrative that existed for a *long* time that only recently has pierced the public consciousness.
The challenge, I think, it we haven't figured out how to have a constructive public discourse with such a broad array of opinions and viewpoints. We're at the 'shouting at each other and stomping off' phase, which obviously isn't working very well. Ideally, we can find a way past this and have a discourse that actually helps us find ways to balance personal and public good.
Just because it seems like a mess now, doesn't necessarily mean it can't get better (I hope!)
Where is the evidence that "[a]n ethnically varied group of people [are] all saying the same thing?" For sure, there is a consensus amongst a broad variety of people (one that, based on your comments, I suspect you don't entirely agree with). But, in my lifetime, I don't think I've seen the public discourse range as widely as it does today.
The challenge, I think, is our public discourse isn't really capable of managing such a wide range of opinion. We don't have meaningful ways to broadly weigh all these ideas and opinions and either move towards consensus or find useful accomodations. Both are critical for the health of civil society. We also aren't doing a good job at weeding out nonsense at scale, which means the public discourse is getting really noisy and chaotic.
What we have instead is an impulse towards tribalism -- towards agreeing with our own 'groups' without really listening or considering the other side and towards assuming ill-will on 'the other'. Maybe that's a bit of a defense mechanism at how noisy everything is -- it's hard to stay focused (and follow) a few broadly-shared issues when nobody even agrees what those broadly-shared issues are!
But, I don't really want to go back to a time when there was a consensus of sorts, but lots of people's viewpoints were ignored. To move forward, we need to build mechanisms that can manage a broader public discourse and I'm not even sure what that looks like (yet).
That’s a conundrum for sure, Tony F, and it’s the central question for our society right now. We urgently need new mechanisms, as you point out. If we don’t find new ways of creating consensus and unity of purpose, someone is going to come along and impose them on us. That’s already a dangerous possibility in the country to our south.
I suppose it depends on how you define "public discourse". If you include substack and Gettr, I would agree with you. If you are referring to academia, legacy media, and big tech, I would disagree.
Thanks for the link -- based on the abstract, that sounds interesting. Though it is part of academia :-)
I probably sound like a broken record here, but having a flood of content creates new problems (navigation) that used to be 'solved' by legacy media who, for good or for bad, currated content for us. That's no longer viable, but we still need to find a way to navigate this new world rather than pining for what we're leaving behind (and recognizing not all of what we're leaving behind is good -- a lot of people didn't have a voice).
For me, music has been an interesting test case. Nearly anything recorded is now available at a click, yet I find myself less interested in music mostly because discovery sucks (at least for me). Big tech algorithms are more focused on keeping you on the platform, which means serving up a lot more of the same. It sort of encourages you to go deeper not broader -- if it knows I like a genre, it wants to just serve up tons of *that*; it won't risk serving interesting things that might be adjacent to the thing that you already like as the risk is just as high you'll hate it (and stop listening) as it is you'll find something new you love. I think that's true in the information sphere too, along with a bias towards anger and outrage as those are very 'sticky'. But it makes for a crappier user experience and it doesn't really serve the public good. Maybe a bunch of altruistic coders need to come up with an open, transparent algorithm!
The 'old' way of solving this problem (legacy media, for one) doesn't really work in this new environment. They probably should adapt to helping solve this problem, but they're locked into trying to preserve their old businesses, which is crazy. They still serve a purpose (for me, anyway) but they're just another outlet.
Your point is well-taken, but I think we need to proceed from the understanding that our institutions are in a state of collapse, and cannot provide the basis for curating that you hope for.
Instead, I think we must recognize that new institutions must be built from the ground up by people interested in truth, and that the best way of determining whether someone is in fact interested in truth is not their credentials but actually attentively reading what they write (or listening to what they say) and judging its logic and reasonableness for oneself, as well as engaging them in debate and discussion.
This is obviously a lot of work, but that's what happens when institutions self-destruct: rebuilding is hard.
Of course active censorship makes this impossible. Thank you substack!
Our institutions are self destructing because the current and dominant narrative is supercharged with all knowing conceit. No others opinions are sought, and publicly stating opposing views can cost prestige and livelihoods.
This groupthink has sidelined principles of merit, discovery and genuine empathy for people that are hurting. The resultant decline in standards and productivity is evident all around us today.
Our institutions can be salvaged but we need a concerted effort to stomp out cancel culture and give some dignity back to those who have been discarded as perpetual victims.
The other point worth making is that this will necessarily be a long process. But the temptation of restoring legitimate curation through the exercise of power, gatekeeping, and censorship must be avoided: it won't work.
I would have thought as a book store, your goal is to sell as many books as possible. So I really don't understand why they would censor what they sell online. They're only hurting their own sales. And when you're watching books being banned in the US, one would think that would motivate them to rise above that and show an openness to the written word...even ones they don't agree with.
Chapters used to be a great store...Indigo I'm not so big on. Access to knowledge used to be important. Access to unfounded opinion seems to matter more now...to our detriment.
I don't think they are censoring, I think it's an algorithm designed for optimum sales. That the product is books isn't a huge part of it. Maybe candles are.
"Nobody goes to Chapters/Indigo because they want to buy books. They go because they want to be the sort of people who spend time in Chapters/Indigo. Regardless of whether or not the books they buy are actually read, you better damn well bet they are going to be displayed. "
I fail to see the point of this article. An author would like his book in a particular store -instead they sell it online where majority of books are sold. Has the book been banned? No. Is the book unavailable? No - actually on best seller list - so must be widely available. July - traditional month of non-stories.
I felt the point was - Indigo has developed a certain clientele. Their assessment is their client base largely would not want this book displayed so company chose to sell it online. However - we may both be reading things in the article.
I'm sure Indigo hires some high-powered analytics firm to crunch the data that determines what books go to which locales, in what numbers, online or off, hard-copy or digital, etc. etc. I'm with you in this one.
As of July 1, 2017, the company operated 86 superstores under the banners Chapters and Indigo and 123 small format stores, under the banners Coles, Indigospirit, and The Book Company. Indigo is headquartered in Toronto, Ontario and employed more than 7,000 people throughout Canada.
Love this article. You won’t find this sort of commentary in the Globe! My favourite Line piece to date. A couple of comments:
1. This should be your new Twitter bio: “I am 100 per cent Chapters/Indigo's basic bitch consumer.”
2. I used to work for E-Z Rock a million years ago and we did have a composite target audience member, exactly like you describe. Her name was Brenda.
3. Indigo is nowhere near a monopoly. The criticisms about what/how they make books available are the arguments for why public libraries are so important.
Since this site is heavy on the idea of freedom of expression, and, I suppose, action, I cannot help but be puzzled why what a business decides to put on its shelves should be of interest to anyone other than that owner, and should excite the hysteria seen below. I doubt the decision has a hidden meaning.
Each square metre, in retail, has to earn its keep. Stock in a physical store is meant to do that. I understand that this store has an apparently emotional place in the minds of some Canadians, but you give it too much cred. It’s a store. It’s in the business of making a profit. Shoppers vote with their feet all the time. So vote with your feet and shop elsewhere.
What makes a best seller in Canada? Of course, it's not censorship.
Toronto Star: Bestselling Books in Canada for the Week Ending July 27th 2022:
4 days ago 1. The Freedom Convoy, Andrew Lawton, Sutherland House (3) 2. Atlas of the Heart, Brené Brown, Random House (32) 3. Braiding Sweetgrass, Robin Wall Kimmerer, Milkweed (81) 4. Finding the Mother ...
I don't have a Star account so that's all I could glean, but it looks like those crazy progressive lefties at Tor Star cut Lawton some slack. Where people shop is up to them.
My granddaughter asked me why the Nazis murdered the jews. So I downloaded Mein Kampf and re-read it because he is so clear on why. Historical documents are great for getting a clear understanding of issues. I thought at the time Indigo didn't understand why it was useful. But it seems there were other reasons. in the last 10 years I see media and book stores pushing agendas that they think we need rather than being a book seller. They also censor what they don't like. You article is right on.
Have you people never heard of independent small business owned bookstores? Why would anyone would buy books from Indigo or Amazon or Costco when a small business can be supported? These businesses, like any small business contribute to the cultural vitality of a business district. I am certain you can even find a small business purveyor of bogy (or whatever the hell they are called) candles somewhere else. Or, buy your candles, Jen, as I do, from dead people’s estate sales…
That was great Jen. I especially liked this:
"Nobody goes to Chapters/Indigo because they want to buy books. They go because they want to be the sort of people who spend time in Chapters/Indigo. Regardless of whether or not the books they buy are actually read, you better damn well bet they are going to be displayed. "
One of the best things I have read recently. Thank you.
Indigo could make bank with a Zoom backdrop curating service.
With seasonal updates?
Of course. Via a subscription model.
That was the perfect trio of sentences.
Every institution in the country (media, courts, academia, military, government, civil service, ... - the list goes on) has decided to go all in on censorship and control of discourse to conform to the rulers' narrative. Since Canada was always governed by a cozy Laurentian elite, this doesn't take any kind of conspiracy, just natural dislike of outsiders without any countervailing sense of noblesse oblige. As you say, Indigo at least has the profit motive as a kind of justification for dropping any claim to institutional status.
The only answer is top to bottom restructuring of all the institutions, including eliminating and rebuilding from scratch wherever possible.
Part of the problem is that the Laurentian elite used to be divided into two-ish groups, the Liberals and the PCs. They disagreed according to Oxford debating rules. Now, the elite is a monolith of one opinion with everything and everyone else shunted as knuckle draggers. And those knuckle draggers are going to tip over the elite ship in due course.
This is why Poilievre's stance on firing the governor of the BOC, defunding the CBC, and ending the media subsidy are good - CBC and the entire Canadian media should go through bankruptcy, BOC needs a top down housecleaning. (Or maybe a complete replacement - stand up a copy, with new personnel top to bottom, then pass a statute transferring authority?)
And we need a PM who is willing to kick over the applecarts.
When all you have is a hammer....
Should? LOL When the Prime Minister and his lackies start interfering in the rule of law is when its a Banana Republic. Wilson Raybould is proud to say she is guilt free in that but unfortunately Trudeau and his friends in the PMO's office are not. You need to understand that when the Prime Minister of this country ignores completely the Constitution, the Rights and Freedoms of the people and interferes in our judicial system is when we are a Banana Republic.
Marylou!!!! Hallelujah!!!! We agree on something!!!!!
LOL, I don't agree but you are so happy!!!!
Do you know for a fact Terry Quinn is employed by the government, or just assume it from his comments?
During the convoy, Justin Ling was basically a propagandist for the view that the convoy was an evil Nazi horde. Not a journalist imo but someone desperate to get invited to the good parties.
Did Ling misrepresent the convoy? I've read a lot of his stuff, listened to a lot of interviews and I'm pretty sure Ling knows of what he writes.
But besides Lawton, there are dozens and dozen of books about those damn trucks. Good on Andrew if sales are good. More money online anyway. Even if it's marked down % 16 on Amazon. Yeah, I can't see the convoy crowd wandering into Indigo to Lawton's book and staying to peruse the titles on the shelves.
I miss my bookstores. Pre Chapters/Indigo there were bookstores everywhere. Little ones sometimes two only a short distance from each other. The last time I was in Indigo Books was at least 10 years if not more. Closer to 15. I think it was Easter, there were the most precious bunnies and note paper and crap...it was horrible. I don't fit the demographic I guess. I don't like to buy from Amazon but as there is only one new book, bookstore in the town up from me, 20k ,and nothing in my town but a couple of surprisingly good used book stores where I have to back every week in case something good comes in. But it is not the same.
I remember something about Heather Reisman's decision to not carry Mein Kampf. I had read it after I took it out of the library and didn't plan on buying a personal copy. She and her husband are Jewish which could have something to do with it. I can understand that. We will never have those lovely little book stores that seemed to know what you wanted.
I ran into an article about "Duthie Books" (A real bookstore) in Vancouver, on Robson St. Some of you might know it. It opened in 1957 and closed in 2010. Jay Clarke aka Michael Slade the writer of the most gruesome, bloody, horrible and fascinating murder mysteries you are likely to get your hands on really did get his start there. Michael Slade is actually several writers including Jay Clarke and his daughter.
“Fifty years have passed since Bill and Binky encouraged that young writer (do you think that goes on today in the big box stores? Ha!)”
https://bcbooklook.com/jay-clarke-michael-slade/
Stay in your lane, Terry. Nobody replied to your comment on this thing and you just responding to others to get a rise out of them is....sad. So sad. Turn your computer off this long weekend and reflect (you won't, you'll clap back at me somehow but, guess what? My computer will be off).
Is there a time limit that a post must be responded to?
I go there to buy books. Or, wait, have I missed something? Might I have caught my reflection in a window, discovered that I was posing, one hand thoughtfully on chin, the other prominently holding up the Penguin for Suetonius' "The Twelve Caesars" for all to see? And looked around the store to see we were all posing for each other, Performing Smartness and Sophistication?
Don't be silly, Jen, that's the goofiest thing I've ever read from you, pathetically easy to disprove. Nearly everybody there is buying what's always popular: crime and spy and action novels, self-help and wellness.
Also, I can't think of a single friend who "displays" their books on coffee tables or living-room walls to show off their au-courant braininess. Except me, with Mike Myer's "Canada" on the table, if that counts. And the atlases are there because I still haul them out when the TV show goes to weird places. My library mainly reveals my weakness for SF and fantasy.
Nope: why would you go to a bookstore to look smart and get smart decor, when you can just Perform Smartness on Twitter? Journalists are addicted to it for precisely that reason: a Twitter bon mot can boost a career.
And how about a TheLine shout-out to Justin Ling for a fair and civil interview with Lawson, from a journo on the other side of the conversation?
https://www.bugeyedandshameless.com/p/the-freedom-convoy
We've got books all over our house, and I'm not too ashamed to admit that the ones in the most prominent locations are meant to a) look good, and b) present a more flattering curated view of what we read (trashy paperbacks can stay in the basement, thanks.) Sadly, I don't think I've bought a book at a physical bookstore in a long time. Our house is cluttered with them, and we never feel like we can throw them out. Instead, we've embraced e-readers. I'd guess my wife buys and reads more books than ever, but we don't need to add more bookcases...
My favourite book facts are, that ebooks hit 20% of the market and stuck, who knows why; and that the ebooks,unlike EVERY other computer-related product, are much preferred by the old, more than the young.
Adjustable font size.
If you're going hiking, camping, or heading up to the cabin, e-readers are fantastic. Hundreds of books on one compact, lightweight device; 30-40 hours of battery life; waterproof, plus a backlight so you can read after dark without a flashlight. My wife loves hers for the adjustable font size too. However, she's adamant she does NOT need reading glasses!!
I do wear glasses but maybe I'll try again. My library loans them out.
I love my computers, hate my phone, and simply could not get into the e-reader. My granddaughter let me try her's out but it was like golf, somehow wrong. Audio books are good and even my trashy paperbacks have a home with the high brow stuff.
When Chapter's opened in Vancouver we went to check it out. Beautiful wood everywhere and about a million people milling around. Everyone wanted to love it but the writing was on the wall. Indigo was the punctuation mark.
It's been years since I bothered with Indigo because they like fantasy, or they have identified the demographic that does, and next to no sci-fi. I will read almost anything, very little fantasy though, but half a doz "curated" sci-fi is lame. Worse than lame.
I have friends that do just that, pose their books. One friend only wants hardcovers, paperbacks are trashy. She used to read a lot but I think it's all for show now. Another friend leaves only Architectural Digest about. Some of her books are to match the pillows. She's crazy!
Jen is correct. Many not do have an honest relationship with their books.
What is a bougie candle?
You nailed it..."the convoy itself remain[s] a common shibboleth within the established cultural milieu".
How DARE the riff-raff create a populist and globally visible symbol of discontent with the way we run things? Why, it's just off-putting and undignified is what.
Tom S, as an apologist for the convoy, would you be prepared to condemn the 24/7 horn-honking and diesel exhaust, the intimidation and threats, the blatant disregard for the right of Ottawa citizens to live their lives in peace and quiet?
I might agree with you that many of the convoy protesters had some genuine beefs and just wanted someone to listen to them without being dismissed as a bunch of know-nothings (leaving aside the fact that the leadership of the convoy was highjacked by some dangerous people). But there was a lot more going on than the airing of a few grievances.
So many convoy supporters are a little too self-satisfied for my liking. They refuse to admit that these so-called freedom-fighters had no qualms about taking away the freedoms of everyone else.
Neil, Tom has spoken for himself on your points; I will speak for myself in respect of your comment.
I would not at all describe myself as an apologist for the convoy but I had great sympathy with their aims.
As Tom points out, all protests are, by their nature, a disruption to someone. For example, if the staff at your favorite grocery store strike and management chooses to keep it open you have to decide whether or not to cross the picket lines. It matters not if the union is immensely greedy or if management is totally unreasonable: you still have to decide whether to cross that picket line or go to a less convenient store. The point is that the protesters / strikers are using your inconvenience as a weapon in their protest / strike. That is their right.
If it were me, the honking would have stopped between, say, 10PM and 6AM. The protesters made their own choice in that regard and, again, that is their right.
I absolutely, totally, irrevocably [sufficiently strong adverbs?] agree with Tom's description of JT's "performance" (for performance it was) in respect of this demo as being petulant. Similarly, his description of the authorities (in)actions is dead on.
You trot out the idea of the convoy being "highjacked" by "dangerous people" but you don't tell us - well, neither do the authorities tell us - about the gun battles that went on; the armed militia that was taken down by the OPP / Ottawa police / army; the gunboats that were sailing into Ottawa on the (frozen) Rideau Canal. of course, there were no such incidents or any similar incidents. In fact, the only "dangerous people" who were arrested were two people who had the temerity to believe in an old fashioned (and now out of date) concept that the Governor General could dismiss the Prime Minister - an archaic but historic concept. [Perhaps you want all citizens of Canada to take university level courses to better understand how government (doesn't) work in Canada.] Specifically, to which other "dangerous people" do you refer? And please do be specific and please do advise why those "dangerous people" were not arrested and charged.
Ah, yes, self satisfied. And, what, in particular is my sin to which you refer? Oh, you refer to "taking away the freedoms of everyone else." Please refer to paragraph three above. And, please also look in the mirror when you throw around the descriptive of "self satisfied" when you are inconvenienced because perhaps then you will understand how so many of us in this wretched country have felt over the last number of years. Perhaps that makes you "self satisfied?"
Neil, you should also consider the Charter of Rights provides rights to those with whom you disagree. Odious, no? The nerve of "those people" to think differently than you!!!
And finally, yes, Neil, I agree with Tom that we do certainly await for your outrage when railway lines are blocked, forestry workers are attacked with chainsaws, construction equipment is blown up and so forth. Please try not to be so self satisfied when you think that we in the regions outside the Ottawa - Toronto - Montreal triangle are "deserving" of all that "inconvenience" and, instead, think of the specific violence that DID / DOES occur. Oh, yeah, violence that is defined in the Criminal Code; unlike the "violence" in Ottawa that resulted in charges of mischief.
Well you're obviously spoiling for a fight. I’ll simply note that your dismissal of the weeks of real distress experienced by the residents of Ottawa, well-documented in the media, as mere inconvenience speaks volumes.
I like it when people think differently than me. I don’t like it when they use the kind of intimidation we saw in Ottawa to impose their thinking on me.
Ah, so I suppose that I am to infer that you very much accept that people think differently than you unless they are charged with mischief and they then have to spend more than 50 days in jail without bail when even murderers get bail.
And, the idea that intimidation is a horn honking. Bosh! Distress? I am quite certain.
Uncomfortable? Certainly. Unkind? Yup. Intimidation? Not whatsoever. Legal, absolutely. Unless someone obtains an injunction - which a young woman did and she successfully dealt with the horns in her area. So, what was the problem with other residents of Ottawa in not taking such action, hmmm?
Disagree with most of what you say here but I would just like to point out to you and everyone else you says "mischief" as if it was something children do. Scoff all you like but it can result in anything from a small fine to life imprisonment depending on the severity of the mischief. A criminal record, fines, probation and/or jail time are all a serious possibilities.
I live near the TCH, the Canada wide marshalling area for the Freedom Convoy. Many Canadians in Ottawa and areas nearby that were inconvenienced by the take over of their streets need to lift their heads up and see what was going on all across the country.
When the Convoy passed through my area, I stumbled upon the activity by accident and found the assembly to be well organized, respectful and wanting the thru traffic to be able to continue on without hassle. But the amazing thing was the crowds on the side of the road cheering them on. Old, young and in between. Moms and Dad’s and kids of all ages. The support from grassroots people is the undeveloped story line of all, and should give pause to the media and eastern Canadians to wonder WHY? Why are so many ordinary people cheering this Convoy on?
There are many reasons I suppose, but a central theme is a visceral backlash (and message) being directed at the governing class in Ottawa who aren’t good listeners and have been going out of their way to make life hard for anyone who isn’t a Liberal supporter.
The Convoy became the conduit of frustration from people who are fed up, and declaring the EA and freezing assets of participants underscores the severity of the problem.
Nicely put, Darcy. And from someone much closer to the bouncy castles than I.
I need to be clear: I didn’t join the Convoy, nor did I contribute anything other than good will toward the effort.
As I wrote elsewhere, I think the Convoy was undermined by its amateurishness and the organizers stumbled into such a dug in presence on the streets of Ottawa they failed to articulate to their supporters or anyone else how to bring things to a conclusion before they burned up all their goodwill.
Darcy, if this is a sortof-apology, there's no need. Sounds like you took some flak for your "good will". And, by the way, "protests" are almost (again by definition) amateurish.
Hi there...
I didn’t have any skin in the Freedom Convoy action, so any flak I receive is minuscule compared to people who were jailed without bail and had assets frozen.
And to think that the genesis of discontent started with political calculations that used vaccine mandates as an election wedge. People can cuss the Freedom Convoy up and down, but aren’t able to see how we were all used by the Liberals. It’s pretty despicable politics to pit citizens against each other over personal health choices. The Liberals are still clinging to overreaching policies on trains, planes and border crossings and the only remedy will be negative opinion polls.
Neilster, protests are (almost by definitiion) intrusive...and our Charter protects "freedom of expression" and "freedom of peaceful assembly". So far as I can determine, there is no right to "peace and quiet"--in Ottawa or anywhere else. The Freedom Convoy was both an "expression" and "peaceful" so, no, I do not condemn it.
That the constant horn-honking was hugely annoying, you have my agreement on that.
But the Prime Minister's dismissive petulance and the overwhelming ineptitude in Ottawa's administration and police force contributed much more the duration of the annoyance than anything from the Freedom Convoy.
I believe the claim about the convoy being "highjacked by some dangerous people" emminanted from someone extremely thin skinned...or is totally bogus ("misinformation" in government-speak).
If your interpretation of this response is "a little too self-satisfied" then so be it.
I await your outrage when next the Indians hijack the railway lines, the tree huggers again attack BC forestry workers with chainsaws and when BC whack jobs riot again at the Stanley Cup. Now THOSE protests...took away real freedoms.
There is no constitutional right to use your vehicle to blockade anything under the cover of “freedom of expression”.
Crankypants (I luv that handle), there is no constitution prohibition either. But there are probably lots of municipal laws that cover vehicle blockages. Ottawa administrationo ran from those decisions.
Yes, derogation of duty on many levels. But we know why, don’t we? The police were afraid of provoking the mob that was spoiling for a confrontation with the authorities, any authorities, all the while hiding behind their bouncy castles and hot tubs and children in attendance. Who knew what was in the parked trailers? Guns, plastic explosives, fertilizer bombs, could have been anything.
"Spoiling for a confrontation"? Utter nonsense. If so, he police were unhinged fraidy-cats. Glad I don't depend on Ottawa cops.
Pat, we agree on the continuous horn honking. However, we're all benefitting from 20:20 hindsight. Remember, our PM ran away and hid. That caused him a lot of support also.
Used to be a big fan of Chapters, then it became Indigo. It got a bit pretentious since then. I go to a book store to see books, not be part of a 'brand'. (now I just browse online stores and download to an ereader)
OTOH, USED bookstores are still a little shop of wonders. If I buy a physical book, its from here. I can waste a tremendous amount of time in one of these.
Agreed, Chapters is a joke. Long live the used bookstore!
BMV Books in Toronto are a slice of heaven.
looks nice, I'll check it out
I'm moving there, so...thx, I'll check it out
My take (if I'm reading this correctly) is that as 'mainstream culture' (whatever that is) has broadened, the former arbitrators of what is meaningful in that culture have become less relvant. It isn't that Indigo has changed -- it's that Canada has changed.
But, isn't this a good thing? It means that a LOT of voices that wouldn't have been heard twenty years ago have a voice. It means that the public discourse is broader and more varied. While that means cranks going on about chips in vaccines have a voice, so do Indigenous Leaders to cite one example. We're in the middle of having a Pope apologize for the Church's role in Residential Schools, which seems to be a great example of a narrative that existed for a *long* time that only recently has pierced the public consciousness.
The challenge, I think, it we haven't figured out how to have a constructive public discourse with such a broad array of opinions and viewpoints. We're at the 'shouting at each other and stomping off' phase, which obviously isn't working very well. Ideally, we can find a way past this and have a discourse that actually helps us find ways to balance personal and public good.
Just because it seems like a mess now, doesn't necessarily mean it can't get better (I hope!)
An ethnically varied group of people all saying the same thing is not the same as broader and more varied public discourse. It's the opposite.
Where is the evidence that "[a]n ethnically varied group of people [are] all saying the same thing?" For sure, there is a consensus amongst a broad variety of people (one that, based on your comments, I suspect you don't entirely agree with). But, in my lifetime, I don't think I've seen the public discourse range as widely as it does today.
The challenge, I think, is our public discourse isn't really capable of managing such a wide range of opinion. We don't have meaningful ways to broadly weigh all these ideas and opinions and either move towards consensus or find useful accomodations. Both are critical for the health of civil society. We also aren't doing a good job at weeding out nonsense at scale, which means the public discourse is getting really noisy and chaotic.
What we have instead is an impulse towards tribalism -- towards agreeing with our own 'groups' without really listening or considering the other side and towards assuming ill-will on 'the other'. Maybe that's a bit of a defense mechanism at how noisy everything is -- it's hard to stay focused (and follow) a few broadly-shared issues when nobody even agrees what those broadly-shared issues are!
But, I don't really want to go back to a time when there was a consensus of sorts, but lots of people's viewpoints were ignored. To move forward, we need to build mechanisms that can manage a broader public discourse and I'm not even sure what that looks like (yet).
That’s a conundrum for sure, Tony F, and it’s the central question for our society right now. We urgently need new mechanisms, as you point out. If we don’t find new ways of creating consensus and unity of purpose, someone is going to come along and impose them on us. That’s already a dangerous possibility in the country to our south.
I suppose it depends on how you define "public discourse". If you include substack and Gettr, I would agree with you. If you are referring to academia, legacy media, and big tech, I would disagree.
This article is relevant: https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/12274299
Thanks for the link -- based on the abstract, that sounds interesting. Though it is part of academia :-)
I probably sound like a broken record here, but having a flood of content creates new problems (navigation) that used to be 'solved' by legacy media who, for good or for bad, currated content for us. That's no longer viable, but we still need to find a way to navigate this new world rather than pining for what we're leaving behind (and recognizing not all of what we're leaving behind is good -- a lot of people didn't have a voice).
For me, music has been an interesting test case. Nearly anything recorded is now available at a click, yet I find myself less interested in music mostly because discovery sucks (at least for me). Big tech algorithms are more focused on keeping you on the platform, which means serving up a lot more of the same. It sort of encourages you to go deeper not broader -- if it knows I like a genre, it wants to just serve up tons of *that*; it won't risk serving interesting things that might be adjacent to the thing that you already like as the risk is just as high you'll hate it (and stop listening) as it is you'll find something new you love. I think that's true in the information sphere too, along with a bias towards anger and outrage as those are very 'sticky'. But it makes for a crappier user experience and it doesn't really serve the public good. Maybe a bunch of altruistic coders need to come up with an open, transparent algorithm!
The 'old' way of solving this problem (legacy media, for one) doesn't really work in this new environment. They probably should adapt to helping solve this problem, but they're locked into trying to preserve their old businesses, which is crazy. They still serve a purpose (for me, anyway) but they're just another outlet.
That was a fine post. My thanks.
I wish a coder would fix the javascript.
Your point is well-taken, but I think we need to proceed from the understanding that our institutions are in a state of collapse, and cannot provide the basis for curating that you hope for.
Instead, I think we must recognize that new institutions must be built from the ground up by people interested in truth, and that the best way of determining whether someone is in fact interested in truth is not their credentials but actually attentively reading what they write (or listening to what they say) and judging its logic and reasonableness for oneself, as well as engaging them in debate and discussion.
This is obviously a lot of work, but that's what happens when institutions self-destruct: rebuilding is hard.
Of course active censorship makes this impossible. Thank you substack!
Since I linked one paper by Harvard, I suppose it makes sense to link another one by MIT, illustrating my point: https://anthropology.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/G.Jones%20C.Lee%20et%20al.%202021%20Viral%20Visualization%20pre-print.pdf
Our institutions are self destructing because the current and dominant narrative is supercharged with all knowing conceit. No others opinions are sought, and publicly stating opposing views can cost prestige and livelihoods.
This groupthink has sidelined principles of merit, discovery and genuine empathy for people that are hurting. The resultant decline in standards and productivity is evident all around us today.
Our institutions can be salvaged but we need a concerted effort to stomp out cancel culture and give some dignity back to those who have been discarded as perpetual victims.
The other point worth making is that this will necessarily be a long process. But the temptation of restoring legitimate curation through the exercise of power, gatekeeping, and censorship must be avoided: it won't work.
Interesting link. Interesting pre-print.
Mark, your link is to academia. GETTR sounds like a bad dating app. What is alt-tech?
If I have to order it online I will go to Amazon and avoid Indigo entirely.
I would have thought as a book store, your goal is to sell as many books as possible. So I really don't understand why they would censor what they sell online. They're only hurting their own sales. And when you're watching books being banned in the US, one would think that would motivate them to rise above that and show an openness to the written word...even ones they don't agree with.
Chapters used to be a great store...Indigo I'm not so big on. Access to knowledge used to be important. Access to unfounded opinion seems to matter more now...to our detriment.
I don't think they are censoring, I think it's an algorithm designed for optimum sales. That the product is books isn't a huge part of it. Maybe candles are.
"Nobody goes to Chapters/Indigo because they want to buy books. They go because they want to be the sort of people who spend time in Chapters/Indigo. Regardless of whether or not the books they buy are actually read, you better damn well bet they are going to be displayed. "
Ridiculous remark.
I fail to see the point of this article. An author would like his book in a particular store -instead they sell it online where majority of books are sold. Has the book been banned? No. Is the book unavailable? No - actually on best seller list - so must be widely available. July - traditional month of non-stories.
I felt the point was - Indigo has developed a certain clientele. Their assessment is their client base largely would not want this book displayed so company chose to sell it online. However - we may both be reading things in the article.
I'm sure Indigo hires some high-powered analytics firm to crunch the data that determines what books go to which locales, in what numbers, online or off, hard-copy or digital, etc. etc. I'm with you in this one.
How many stores does Indigo Books have?
As of July 1, 2017, the company operated 86 superstores under the banners Chapters and Indigo and 123 small format stores, under the banners Coles, Indigospirit, and The Book Company. Indigo is headquartered in Toronto, Ontario and employed more than 7,000 people throughout Canada.
Not so insignificant or irrelevant.
I used to work at Coles, pre Indigo.
Irrelevant? That's not my takeaway.
Love this article. You won’t find this sort of commentary in the Globe! My favourite Line piece to date. A couple of comments:
1. This should be your new Twitter bio: “I am 100 per cent Chapters/Indigo's basic bitch consumer.”
2. I used to work for E-Z Rock a million years ago and we did have a composite target audience member, exactly like you describe. Her name was Brenda.
3. Indigo is nowhere near a monopoly. The criticisms about what/how they make books available are the arguments for why public libraries are so important.
Many of the citizen’s of Ottawa seem quite willing to trade the freedom to protest for relief from honking horns and the smell of diesel.
What a noble stance - how representative of the character of those who inhabit our National Capitol.
Since this site is heavy on the idea of freedom of expression, and, I suppose, action, I cannot help but be puzzled why what a business decides to put on its shelves should be of interest to anyone other than that owner, and should excite the hysteria seen below. I doubt the decision has a hidden meaning.
Each square metre, in retail, has to earn its keep. Stock in a physical store is meant to do that. I understand that this store has an apparently emotional place in the minds of some Canadians, but you give it too much cred. It’s a store. It’s in the business of making a profit. Shoppers vote with their feet all the time. So vote with your feet and shop elsewhere.
What makes a best seller in Canada? Of course, it's not censorship.
Toronto Star: Bestselling Books in Canada for the Week Ending July 27th 2022:
4 days ago 1. The Freedom Convoy, Andrew Lawton, Sutherland House (3) 2. Atlas of the Heart, Brené Brown, Random House (32) 3. Braiding Sweetgrass, Robin Wall Kimmerer, Milkweed (81) 4. Finding the Mother ...
I don't have a Star account so that's all I could glean, but it looks like those crazy progressive lefties at Tor Star cut Lawton some slack. Where people shop is up to them.
My granddaughter asked me why the Nazis murdered the jews. So I downloaded Mein Kampf and re-read it because he is so clear on why. Historical documents are great for getting a clear understanding of issues. I thought at the time Indigo didn't understand why it was useful. But it seems there were other reasons. in the last 10 years I see media and book stores pushing agendas that they think we need rather than being a book seller. They also censor what they don't like. You article is right on.
Have you people never heard of independent small business owned bookstores? Why would anyone would buy books from Indigo or Amazon or Costco when a small business can be supported? These businesses, like any small business contribute to the cultural vitality of a business district. I am certain you can even find a small business purveyor of bogy (or whatever the hell they are called) candles somewhere else. Or, buy your candles, Jen, as I do, from dead people’s estate sales…