In a previous post I quote W.J. Keith’s review of W.H. New’s A History of Canadian Literature. Second Edition. (McGill-Queen’s University Press 2004) in which he says "readers interested in literature as art, who wish to be informed about its most distinguished practitioners, are likely to be disappointed."
A.J.M. Smith, says the same thing, more directly, at the conclusion of his review of the first edition of The Literary History of Canada (ed. Carl Klinck, 1965):
What is needed now is a comprehensive ‘critical history’ by a single author who can combine scholarly research with imaginative interpretation and who has enough faith in the literary quality of the best work drawn from all kinds of writing…to make evaluation his first business and let the chips fall where they may."
Smith’s prescription is quoted in An Independent Stance: Critical Directions, by W.J. Keith, (a book I can strongly recommend to anyone interested in criticism and attempts that have been made to discern what is good in Canadian literature), as an antidote to this wound Northrup Frye inflicted upon evaluative criticism in the concluding chapter of Klinck’s book: "Had evaluation been their guiding principle, this book would, if written at all, have been only a huge debunking project, leaving Canadian literature a poor naked alouette plucked of every feather of decency and dignity."
Forty years on and Canadian literature still hasn’t received a good plucking.