Latest News

Commentary, Opinion

Bill 40’s differential treatment of Anglophones demonstrates CAQ’s troubled agenda

by James Li on

More in Commentary:

Public hearings for Bill 40, which would remove all school boards in favour of service centres, began at the National Assembly on Nov. 4. While the bill fulfills one of the CAQ’s election promises, its provision to maintain elections for the board of directors of Anglophone, but not Francophone, service centres has proved to be its most controversial aspect. Education Minister Jean-François Roberge explained that the changes will streamline an inefficient system and save $45 million over the next four years. However, the bill is actually a hasty attempt to centralize power. In addition, the bill’s misstep in angering the Francophone community should not distract McGill from the CAQ’s continued mistreatment of English institutions.

Haphazardly changing the organization of the school system does not improve student education. Groups representing Francophone and Anglophone school boards alike brought up this point during Nov. 4’s public hearings. Instead, the bill is taking power away from voters, parents, and education professionals, granting the Minister of Education more executive power. Civic engagement and academic performance will be diminished, as observed in PEI and Nova Scotia, where Liberal governments recently removed school boards. 

At the very least, one would expect the government to follow the democratic process in deciding that it is best to remove elections, which means an adequate period for hearings and debate. Unfortunately, this has not happened. The timeline for hearings is unproportionally short considering the magnitude of the proposed changes, and would have been even shorter were it not for opposition pressure. The CAQ is working on a tight timeline as they hope to pass Bill 40 before Christmas, causing speculation that Premier Legault will use the process of closure to end debate on the bill as he did with the controversial Bills 9 and 21.

The CAQ has continuously exerted its power to the detriment of Quebec’s English institutions. While hearings for Bill 40 were running, Legault put the English Montreal School Board (EMSB) under trusteeship, accusing it of corruption. The timing of this news is a planned political move, one that effectively silences the EMSB, which previously filed legal action over the CAQ forcefully transferring schools to the French system, as well as to protect its staff from Bill 21. McGill should be especially wary of Roberge’s attempts to stretch beyond his power and impose austerity. As an English institution, McGill has historically already been treated disadvantageously; students should be particularly conscientious now, given the CAQ’s penchant to handicap Anglophones. 

In their rush to pass the bill, the CAQ has attempted to quell Anglophone dissent by changing the bill to allow English service centres to keep elections. Roberge explains this inequality by saying “in Canada there is a protection of minorities.” While it is not without justification, nor without precedent, to give special privileges to minorities (PEI and Nova Scotia kept their French school boards), it is frankly difficult to believe this supposed care for the Anglophone minority coming from this government. The CAQ is trying to placate the Anglophone community; it is afraid of legal challenges under the minority language education rights enshrined in Section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, Francophones are claiming discrimination, while unsatisfied Anglophones maintain that Bill 40 may still infringe on Section 23 rights because of increased executive power.

The CAQ’s propensity to speedily instigate extensive change has backfired at a surprising moment. Education is not nearly as divisive or attention-grabbing as those issues concerning the CAQ’s headlining moves, such as Laws 9 and 21, which ostensibly target minorities. However, by upsetting the Francophone majority, the CAQ will potentially face a much fiercer opposition than before. McGill students should also stand in opposition to this violation of democratic principles. In particular, students must make their concerns known to the SSMU and administration, to rein in the Minister of Education and Higher Education whose sweeping reforms may soon concern universities.

 

Commentary, Opinion

Students’ reliance on technology is increasingly distressing

by Kennedy McKee-Braide, Staff Writer on

More in Commentary:

Upon entering the typical McGill classroom, a sea of screens makes it clear that the use of laptops and tablets for note-taking has become commonplace. In response to this phenomenon, professors tend to clarify their technology policy during their first lecture of the semester: Even if they permit the use of laptops and tablets for note-taking, many will point to research that proves the damaging effects of technology use in the classroom, though these remarks are often ignored. In most cases, students should be trying to make the switch to handwritten notes, using technology to enhance their academic experience as opposed to letting it infiltrate every part of it. 

Almost universally, students get their course material on MyCourses, McGill’s ‘online classroom.’ Considering this, it seems logical and convenient to bring online tools into the physical classroom, too. Typing is generally faster than writing by hand, and software like Microsoft OneNote allows students to enhance study materials while providing the freedom to edit notes after lectures. Additionally, having access to search engines can help students avoid falling behind if a term or concept discussed is unclear, especially if the class is too large to ask questions. These factors alone might lead one to the conclusion that typing notes makes the most sense for the average student. 

However, in the long run, this convenience comes at a cost and can lead to poorer grades. Research from the University of California, Los Angeles has shown that those who write by hand tend to be more selective with what they take down in their notes instead of rushing to copy down everything verbatim when typing. While those who type notes can recall dates and facts at the same level as those who write by hand, more nuanced arguments tend to be absorbed better when students use a paper and pen.

Students have also become increasingly compulsive users of social media, with the average person checking their phone every 12 minutes. This is no accident; social media platforms are engineered to keep users addicted. This may explain why checking social media on a laptop is so appealing during lectures. Some students avoid this through self-discipline or applications that block specific websites, but most can be switched off relatively easily.

As time goes on, these distractions make it harder to concentrate for extended periods of time. A study conducted earlier this year compiled years of research on the subject, coming to a near-definite conclusion that certain brain functions, including levels of concentration and capacity for the retention of information, are negatively impacted by constant technology use. These effects can take a toll on students’ ability to be productive and actually absorb what is taught in lectures, which makes doing well more difficult. 

It is important to recognize that technology in the context of the classroom can be beneficial. Typing can make learning much easier for people with learning disabilities, as can text-to-speech software. There is also no doubt that greater access to information and the ability to use online databases and library material makes research easier. Further, online in-class quizzes can encourage students in large classes to attend lectures and catch up on readings, and recorded lectures can be crucial for those who need to miss class. However, the existence of these benefits does not mean that every aspect of students’ academic experiences should be digitized.

Technology in and of itself is not all bad; its positive impact on things like research, medicine, and communication should not be understated. The problems begin when these benefits lead to a belief that everything we do needs to be improved or made more convenient through digitization. Note-taking by hand is more than sufficient for the average person and can lead to better grades and long-term cognitive benefits. Those unhappy with their academic performance should consider eliminating unnecessary technology use. Though this may not make a difference for everyone, science says it’s worth a try. 

Features

Seeing the trees through the forest

by Kaja Surborg on

More in Features:

Prologue: 

I’m perched high in the branches of the red cedar across the street from my childhood home. I have a book, Warrior Cats, and a water bottle, and I feel like I could stay here forever. In my head, I’ve already devised a rope harness system so I don’t fall out as I sleep. I can hear the other kids playing down on the street. They’re welcome to join me, but none of them would dare climb this high. But then I hear my father yell my name.

“Get down right now, but very carefully,” he says.

I knew this warning was coming as soon as he realized where I was. 

“I’m not saying you have to get out of the tree,” he reasons. “I’m just telling you to come down a little lower.” 

There is a particular feeling I get while resting up in a tall tree: It’s this sense of stability, a sense of slowing down in all of the hectic goings-on. When I come down, it isn’t quite the same.

 

Creative

Climate on Campus: Divest McGill

by Sarah Ford and Aidan Martin on

More in Creative:

On November 12, Divest McGill, C-JAM, and Greenpeace McGill held a manifestation to pressure McGill to divest.

Our Multimedia Editors interviewed members of Divest McGill and other climate activists in Montreal to discuss their demands, achievements in the climate justice movement, and what’s in store for climate groups on campus.

Video by Sarah Ford and Aidan Martin
Illustration by Zoe Lubetkin

Hockey, Sports

Martlet hockey triumphs over top-ranked Carabins

by Katia Innes on

More in Hockey:

The McGill Martlets (4–5) faced cross-town rival and RSEQ top-ranked Université de Montréal (UdeM) Carabins (5–2) at McConnell Arena on Nov. 16. From the sound of the opening buzzer, the Martlets dominated, maintaining the lead with the help of third-year forward Lea Dumais’ decisive hat-trick and ultimately securing a 4–1 victory. This victory was especially meaningful for the Martlets considering their last encounter with the Carabins ended in a 1–3 defeat.

“[The Carabins] are definitely […] very physical,” Dumais said. “We’ve played them a lot in the playoffs, so it’s definitely sometimes a bit emotional, but [they’re] always a fun [team] to play against, and it’s very competitive.”

Within minutes of the opening faceoff, the Martlets kept the Carabins in their defensive zone, setting the tone for the rest of the game. Another precedent set early on was in penalties: Two minutes into the game, third-year forward Stephanie Desjardins was called for interference. Though the Martlets were the first in the penalty box, they did not let this deter them. A structured offence and tight passing gave the Martlets ample opportunity for shots on goal, and on a power play for the Martlets, Dumais scored her first point of the game, assisted by third-year forward Kellyane Lecours and fourth-year defencewoman Kate Devries. 

“[We played] with lots of confidence,” Head Coach Peter Smith said. “We had a great week of practice. The previous weekend, we played well against Concordia, [but then] we didn’t play well against Carleton, and I think that that was a lesson learned. In this league, you have to come out of every game and play hard, and I think that’s what we did today.”

The second period saw the Carabins returning the pressure as both teams found the back of the net, with Dumais scoring her second goal. McGill then surged in the third period, gunning to secure victory. A pair of penalties against Dumais and fifth-year center Nicole Howlett for slashing and hooking, respectively, resulted in a five-on-three Carabins power play. Fourth-year goalie Tricia Deguire defended shot after shot from a hungry Montréal offence, remaining steady on the penalty kill. The Martlets used this newfound resolve to score two goals within the last five minutes of the game: One by Dumais to round-out her hat-trick, and an empty net goal from Desjardins. 

With this victory under their belt, the Martlets feel confident that they can use this momentum to power through the final three games of the semester. 

“Today we played amazing,” Deguire said. “It was really a team effort [….] Right now what we need to do is continue on that track, and if we can play the same as today, we will be really good to go [for the next game].”

The Martlets will face off against the University of Ottawa Gee-Gees (7–5) on Nov. 22. 

 

Moment of the game

With third-year forward Lea Dumais and fifth-year centre Nicole Howlett in the penalty box, the Martlets had just three skaters on the ice. Thankfully, the Martlets soldiered through the penalty kill, with fourth-year goalie Tricia Deguire keeping the Carabins’ out of her net. 

Quotable

“Every game that we’ve played has been a […] lesson, and […] today is no different. I think our players realize what they’re capable of [….] Every game I think we’ve gotten better and better at understanding that. I have a lot of confidence that we’ll come out and play exactly like that in our remaining three games of our semester.” — Head Coach Peter Smith on the team’s growth

Stat Corner

The Martlets and Carabins kept the penalty box full this game, with seven penalties against the Martlets and five against the Carabins.

Baseball, Sports

Fantasy sports are ruining real sports

by Gabe Nisker on

More in Baseball:

The Athletic’s Evan Drellich and Ken Rosenthal reported on Nov. 12 that the Houston Astros had used technology to steal signs in 2017. They had installed a camera in centre field to watch the opposing catcher’s signs to the pitcher; someone in the dugout would then bang a garbage can loudly to alert their own hitters as to what pitch was coming. Stealing signs is acceptable if teams can pick up the patterns on their own but using cameras is a step too far. The Astros wanted to win baseball games, but they ignored competitive spirit to do so. The “win-at-all-costs” mentality has a long history in sports, and, more recently, it has been a big factor in ruining them.

About 30 years ago, Sports Illustrated writer Daniel Okrent invented Walks and Hits per Inning Pitched (WHIP), a statistic to assess pitcher performance. Okrent could calculate the statistic by hand, given the easy mathematics. He checked box scores every morning for his rotisserie fantasy baseball league—the first ever—in which friends drafted teams in order to see who would be the best baseball general manager. This story, in and of itself, was okay: They were simply friends having fun.

However, fantasy baseball, and fantasy sports more broadly, have transformed from fun into a cruel money-making machine. Startups DraftKings and FanDuel turned it into a daily game to win money. In daily fantasy sports, players are assigned monetary values and managers must put together the best lineup while staying under the salary cap. The Astros first hired their now-former Assistant General Manager Brandon Taubman because of his Ivy League credentials and a financially successful fantasy sports endeavour. He, like many savvy mathematicians, created algorithms to exploit matchups. 

“Sometimes there were mispricings,” Taubman said to The Athletic in 2018. “One of the big advantages was paying attention to which players were mispriced and taking advantage of that.”

The rhetoric in baseball media has since matched the way we talked about fantasy sports to the point where fans no longer discuss the ins-and-outs of good play on the field. Instead, we debate whether that team should have made a trade or whether a player is a “valuable asset.” Most fans are not on the players’ side. In a sense, they are general managers in their own minds. As a result, real baseball has become such a fantasy to some that they forget that real people are involved, both on and off the field. 

This change in how we watch sports was highlighted during an outburst from Taubman after the Astros advanced to this year’s World Series. 

“Thank god we got [Roberto] Osuna!” Taubman yelled to three female reporters. “I’m so f***ing glad we got Osuna!”

Osuna, the team’s closer, had just blown the save, but it is clear why Taubman yelled at who he did. Sports Illustrated’s Stephanie Apstein reported that Taubman directed his outburst at one reporter in particular who was wearing a domestic violence awareness bracelet. Osuna had been suspended for 75 games the year prior under the Domestic Violence Policy; the Astros acquired him in a trade from Toronto for a lessened cost due to his suspension. Taubman saw his new closer as a mispriced asset, rather than as a domestic abuser, and that is abhorrent.

The Astros’ leadership defended Taubman at first and issued a statement effectively calling Apstein’s report a false accusation. Yet, strong reporting won out, and the league began an investigation into the events. When others confirmed Apstein’s account, the Astros finally fired Taubman in what felt like a case of too little, too late.

The Houston organization is the prime example of a broken system. Teams are preoccupied with how to maximize their value—winning each and every game however they can—which neglects serious problems like players with histories of domestic violence. The Nov. 12 report exposing how the Astros stole signs in the year they won the World Series came out to much fanfare but no real surprise. Baseball’s human element has already gone missing.

From the BrainSTEM, Science & Technology

From the Brainstem: The ethics of gene editing

by Owen Dunkley on

More in From the BrainSTEM:

Since the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953, society has debated whether our understanding of human biology might one day be our downfall. These debates progressed through the transgenic mice and in vitro fertilization of the ‘70s, DNA copying of the ‘80s, viral gene delivery and cloned sheep of the ‘90s, and completion of the human genome in 2003. The controversy has not dissipated, following an explosion in genome editing techniques that were spurred on by the repurposing of Cas9—the effector enzyme of CRISPR-Cas9—in 2012. 

As genetic technologies progress at breakneck speed, humanity’s capacity to safely fix debilitating or fatal genetic disorders has grown to the point that we will be rolling out gene-editing treatments to a greater audience in a matter of years. As the clinical adoption of this field of therapies appears imminent, ethical discussions surrounding the topic of human gene editing have returned to the forefront. Fuelling these debates are two major causes for concern: Designer babies and equitable access to healthcare. 

In late 2018, the genomes—the library of genes within each of our cells—of a set of twins born in China were modified by Cas9 for the purpose of enhancement. The announcement of the births spurred a whirlwind of controversy and renewed calls for a memorandum on the use of CRISPR and similar techniques in human embryos. To the wider public, this controversy may suggest that we have already begun to move toward consumer eugenics, wherein people tailor their children’s features to reflect their ideals. 

However, eminent scientists have underlined that the conservative nature of mainstream science will prevent genome editing research that is not thoroughly vetted by ethics boards. In light of greater ethical oversight, scientists in the coming years will likely focus their research on disease prevention in embryos, rather than on enhancement.

Although concerns about the use of CRISPR-Cas9 in embryos are legitimate, last November’s announcement should not negate the positive impact that gene editing will have in the future. Once genome editing technologies are proven safe for humans, their ability to allow people to live their lives without costly and painful medical conditions should be weighed against other ethical concerns such as potential adverse health effects and societal inequalities. Thousands of heritable single-gene mutations are already known to cause disease, and a majority of them may soon be curable with advanced CRISPR-based techniques. These techniques are likely to be more effective in early embryos than in developed humans. As soon as embryonic gene editing is deemed safe, those who oppose gene editing will need to explain how it is ethical to block people who have no reasonable alternative treatment from accessing a veritable cure.

Equitable access to healthcare remains one of the major hurdles that policymakers face each time new treatments become available. For example, in the early 2000s, patients diagnosed with HIV in Canada had access to more expensive, yet newer and more effective drug combinations than patients in sub-Saharan Africa. This divide in access to treatments allowed HIV to persist within African populations: In 2018, 68 per cent of worldwide HIV infections were in Africa. Meanwhile, only six per cent of worldwide cases were spread across Western and Central Europe and North America, combined. If genome editing technologies are not designed to fundamentally maintain the concepts of equality, disease burdens will again concentrate in lower-income countries, and global social structures will further polarize populations by income. 

No responsible government can stop the advancement of technologies in medicine that have encouraging potential. Rather than fighting off advancements, more effort must be placed on reshaping ethical and legal frameworks to ensure that as new technologies become available, free-market economics do not dictate their use and all people are granted equal access. Conversations on the use of these technologies are needed between policymakers, scientists, and the public, such that everyone understands the implications of their use before they become available.

Research Briefs, Science & Technology

The hidden costs of ‘orphan wells’

by Amir Hotter Yishay on

More in Research Briefs:

According to some estimates, there may be up to five million oil and gas wells in Canada and the United States. In Alberta alone, more than 600,000 wells have been drilled—one for every seven people in the province. The consequences of the extraction, refinement, and use of petroleum is well understood; the effect of extraction on the immediate environment, less so.

The oil drilling process creates pathways for the movement of fluids within the Earth’s subsurface, allowing for the extraction of oil, natural gas, and groundwater—yet, these very same pathways can also facilitate leakage of gases and harmful contaminants. On paper, if wells are properly sealed and maintained, this should not happen, but in practice, it often does—especially when they are abandoned, or ‘orphaned’ by the companies that drilled them in the first place.

Mary Kang, an assistant professor in the Faculty of Engineering, is an expert on the environmental cost of orphaned wells. In 2013, when Kang was conducting research for her PhD, the wells were mainly considered a risk factor for carbon dioxide emissions. 

“I thought, ‘Could they be a source of methane emissions?’” Kang said in an interview with The McGill Tribune. “Apparently, at that time, there was nobody who measured them.” 

As a greenhouse gas, methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Kang’s measurements of abandoned wells in Pennsylvania, the oldest in North America, found that they were in fact emitting significant amounts of the gas, and to an extent far beyond what scientists and oil executives had imagined. Since the publication of Kang’s findings in 2014, methane emissions from abandoned oil and gas wells have finally been included in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) emissions inventories—crucial tools used by government and business alike to calculate their greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions inventories are generally calculated using emission factors, averages based on measurements taken elsewhere.

“All studies show that if you take, say, 100 oil and gas wells, it’s only two or three that emit a lot,” Kang said. “So you can see how using an emission factor from another study can give you uncertain estimates.” 

Kang believes that emissions accounting needs to be more measurement-based, a conviction echoed by the National Academy of Sciences in a 2018 report.

Kang’s work has also shed light on other consequences of orphan wells, finding that they are at risk of polluting groundwater aquifers, the primary source of water for nearly nine million Canadians.

Under the ‘polluter pays’ principle, oil and gas companies are legally bound through Asset Retirement Obligations (ARO) to account for the cost of cleaning up and dismantling wells. However, until a Supreme Court of Canada ruling this January, declaring bankruptcy allowed companies to shirk these responsibilities in lieu of paying back creditors, saddling the government with the cost of clean up. From 2012 to 2017, a downturn in oil and gas saw the number of orphan wells in Alberta catapult from 100 to upward of 3,200. Meanwhile, the number of wells that are effectively out of business and not yet properly sealed or remediated reached the staggering figure of 155,000, which amounts to 30 per cent of all wells in the province. The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) publicly claimed the total financial liability of clean-up measures for the province’s oil and gas industry to be $58 billion. In 2018, however, journalists unearthed private AER documents warning that the actual sum could be closer to $260 billion, of which only 1.6 billion in liability securities had been collected from the private sector. 

While action lags on the issue, the orphan wells will continue to contaminate groundwater and belch methane into the atmosphere. Given the magnitude of the issue at hand, one can only hope that government and industry will be able to pick up the slack, and soon.

Arts & Entertainment

Expozine 2019 opens up the world of independent publishing

by Jonathan Giammaria on

More in Arts & Entertainment:

Mainstream culture often seems omnipresent—but every mainstream contains lively subcultures, and in the case of publishing, that subculture is zines. Montreal’s Expozine, which took place Nov. 16-17, had over 270 vendors set up in Église Sainte-Arsène’s basement and drew over 15,000 visitors. 

Typically, a zine is an independently published work meant to circumvent more traditional avenues for sharing art. Zines have often been associated with fringe issues, speaking for and about marginalized people and providing a platform for countercultural ideas and movements. Since zines have often had small circulations due to their DIY nature, their distribution has generally remained within the communities that produced them. 

Expozine hosted its first convention in 2002, and has since grown to be Canada’s largest small-press convention and one of the most popular events of its kind in North America. With its continued success, Expozine has begun attracting artists internationally. Rows of vendors lined the hall with their visual art, poetry, essays, photography, comics, criticism, and political manifestos. Even within the world of zines, differences in artist resources and funding—some publications are run by a single person, while others boast dedicated editorial teams—make it difficult to reduce the disparity in popularity between larger and more obscure publications. Expozine, however, is an equalizer, where visitors can find kiosks of staple-bound poetry pamphlets next to mainstream publishers displaying their fully-coloured magazines.

Notable attendees included the Quebec literary publisher Véhicule Press, whose kiosk boasted novels and poetry collections from award winning writers. In another corner, Tania Mignacca, the creator of the webcomic Ponto, an endearing series about Montreal’s orange construction cones, displayed her newly published collection of the same name. A few tables down, Concordia’s student-run Queer Print Club exhibited their newest contributions discussing gender and sexuality. In contrast to mainstream conventions like the upcoming Salon du livre de Montréal, Expozine’s value comes from showcasing a variety of artists whose eclectic niches might otherwise be overlooked.

Over the years, Expozine has expanded to include several workshops and talks. One such round table, hosted by La Petite Librairie Drawn & Quarterly on Nov. 14, invited several artists to speak about the collaborative nature of making zines. Jimmy Beaulieu, a Montreal-based cartoonist and comic artist, spoke about the difficulties of distributing work in Canada. Beaulieu spoke of the benefits of working with conventions like Expozine, especially in the era before it was common practice to advertise artwork through social media. Without a major publisher to back his work and distribute it country-wide, concentrated gatherings such as Expozine helped him to reach audiences made inaccessible by Canada’s vast landscape.

Meanwhile, Iris Boudreau, whose illustrations of urban life mix autobiography and fiction, spoke about the benefits of collaborating with fellow artists, some of whom she had met at conventions like Expozine. Boudreau remarked that she has often used collaboration as a means to assuage feelings of self-doubt and to share her projects’ failures and successes with collaborators, many of whom she now considers friends. More than just building solidarity, though, Boudreau also felt that collaboration was a great source of motivation, a tool for completing work and launching new projects.

Embodying this communal spirit, the convention brought together a vibrant collective of artists, writers, and illustrators. As Expozine continues to grow, so will its ability to champion the distinct voices that make up the world of zines.

Arts & Entertainment

Canada’s literary rock star pays a visit to Montreal

by Deana Korsunsky on

More in Arts & Entertainment:

Dark green lights illuminate the walls and ceiling. Hundreds of people cheer and applaud. 

“I’m sorry, this microphone must be broken,” a man in front of the audience exclaims. “I said we have Margaret Atwood here tonight!” The applause in response is deafening.

On Nov. 12, critically acclaimed novelist, poet, and essayist Margaret Atwood presented her latest novel at the St. James United Church. Organized by Librairie Paragraphe as part of its “Words After Dark” series, the event drew hundreds of people to one of Montreal’s biggest literary events of the year. The evening was a stop on Atwood’s book tour for The Testaments, the sequel to her 1985 novel The Handmaid’s Tale.

Atwood sat in front of the altar, an ironic setting given the novel’s critique of  institutionalized religion. Yet, it was simultaneously fitting: The eager audience was hanging on every word of the literary sermon that Atwood delivered. The green lighting, chosen to match the front cover of Atwood’s new novel, was discernible, but soft enough that one could make out the bright red spectacles that she wore on a chain around her neck.

A self-described Atwood fan, radio journalist and host Ann Lagacé Dowson interviewed Atwood throughout the evening, beginning by inquiring about the decades in between publishing The Handmaid’s Tale and its sequel. Atwood decided to return to the story by the recent rise in conservative and extremist politics.

“We’re in a pushback,” Atwood said. “I got to a point where I couldn’t keep my hands off [of] it. In 2016, just before the election, it was crying to be written.” 

Dowson began to point out the similarities between Atwood’s dystopian novels and the current political events around the world, before Atwood clarified the inspiration behind her novels. 

“Everything I wrote about actually happened sometime throughout history,” Atwood said. “I did that because otherwise people would say I made it all up. I didn’t.” 

In literary studies, Atwood is noted for having coined the term ‘speculative fiction’, a genre describing possible consequences of the horrific realities that society creates.

The conversation then shifted to a discussion on climate change and social justice. A long-time environmental advocate, Atwood noted connections between societal unrest and the environmental deterioration. She shared her personal experiences as an activist, and joked about social expectations of activist celebrities. 

“People are saying ‘If Jane Fonda can get arrested, why can’t you?’ to me,” Atwood chuckled, referencing the actress’s weekly protests and subsequent weekly arrests. 

Although the event was advertised as promoting The Testaments, the point of fascination and delight throughout the evening was not Margaret Atwood’s novel, but her demeanour. Throughout her conversation with Dowson, Atwood maintained a relaxed but formidable air of blunt and charming sarcasm. She did not allow Dowson to get away with any stray, misquoted line or not-entirely-correct fact. When Dowson referred to a speech that the writer gave to West Point cadets years ago, Atwood did not hesitate to show some playful attitude. 

“I had said that to more than just cadets, you know. They sat up straighter, too,” Atwood retorted. 

Each time that Atwood made a curt remark, the audience chattered amongst themselves, adoring the literary icon’s authenticity. At times, Dowson was left searching for words, unprepared for and surprised at Atwood’s unapologetic attitude. By the end of the evening, however, both Dowson and Atwood developed a bond in their occasionally off-rhythm conversation, smiling and holding hands as the audience cheered for them.

Librairie Paragraphe’s Words After Dark event left its audience satisfied, and with a new level of understanding of the world-famous writer. The Testaments’ author is not just a brilliant thinker and influential literary figure; Margaret Atwood is a contemporary icon and a celebrity, and she knows it.

1 … 445 446 447 448 449 … 1,364

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue