Margaret Atwood

Novelist, Poet, Story Writer, Editor, Children’s Writer, Literary Critic . Active 1966- in Canada, North America
Margaret Atwood is Canada’s best-known writer and one of the most highly acclaimed living writers world-wide. Her work has achieved both extremely high sales and international critical respect, culminating with her Booker Prize for The Blind Assassin in 2000. She was born in 1939 in Ottawa and as a child she spent much time travelling. Her parents were from Nova Scotia, but they left during the Depression, and Carl Atwood became a professor of zoology, based in Ottawa, and later Toronto. He ran a research station studying tree-eating insects and during the warmer months he took his family to a bush cabin in a remote part of Quebec. During these months Margaret and her brother were taught by their mother, since they could not attend school. The family also made regular trips back to Nova Scotia, and Atwood has commented that her roots are in the Maritime Provinces. As a teenager she worked as a camp counsellor in Haliburton (where she met her lifelong friend and collaborator, the artist Charles Pachter), and she has retained a lifelong fascination with the wildernesses of Northern Canada.
At sixteen Margaret Atwood decided to become a writer and in her high school graduating yearbook she announced her ambition to write the “Great Canadian Novel”. Her aunt, Joyce Barkhouse, had achieved the feat (rare at the time) of combining motherhood and a career, and has written several successful children’s books and biographies. She was one of the first to encourage Atwood in her writing and later collaborated with her on a children’s story, Anna’s Pet (1980).
In 1957, Atwood began a degree in English at Victoria College, University of Toronto. She was taught by Northrop Frye, whose influence on Canadian students of English was immense, and by Jay Macpherson, a young lecturer and a respected poet. Macpherson became a close friend of Atwood’s and introduced her to a range of modern Canadian poetry. Atwood wrote for the college newsletter, the Strand, and for its literary journal, Acta Victoriana. She also began to read her poetry at The Bohemian Embassy coffee-house, as did many other Canadian poets who later became famous, including Milton Acorn and Gwendolyn MacEwen. (These readings are described in Atwood’s short story “Isis in Darkness” in the 1991 Wilderness Tips collection.) In 1959 she published two poems in Canadian Forum, and in 1961 she placed two further poems with The Tamarack Review and also published her first poetry collection, a chapbook entitled Double Persephone. Her then-fiance David Donnell helped her to set the type and print the 250 copies, and the book won the EJ Pratt medal for that year.
In her final year at Victoria College Atwood told Frye she planned to go to England to waitress and “write masterpieces in a convenient garrett at night. He said he thought it might be more productive to go to Graduate School, as I would have more time to write there.” So after graduating, in 1961, she went to Radcliffe in Boston to study Victorian literature with Professor Jerome Buckley, and while she was there Radcliffe became part of Harvard. Harvard’s traditional, exclusive atmosphere was very different from the supportive, forward-looking environment of Victoria College. At Vic there were several women academics in the English department; at Harvard women weren’t even allowed into the Lamont library, where the modern poetry was kept. Atwood’s experience at graduate school encouraged her Canadian nationalist feelings. Studying early American literature at Harvard led her to wonder why early Canadian literature was never studied, and she also commented that the Americans she met thought of Canada as “the blank area north of the map where the bad weather came from”.
In the summer of 1963 Atwood returned to Toronto and took two years out from studying in order to earn money and write.
This Is a Photograph of Me
“This Is a Photograph of Me,” was deceiving at first glance. For the first fourteen lines it looks as if the poem is going to be about a happy memory that the narrator had. It paints a very serene picture in your mind if you picture what is being said. Then, in lines fifteen through twenty-six you suddenly realize that this is not a happy memory, but quite the opposite, because someone has died. Although this initial inference may seem shallow, it was all that I thought of. Then after reading a section on “This Is a Photograph of Me” in The Art of Margaret Atwood: Essays in Criticism I saw a different meaning. The poem is not only being told by one person as it seems it is upon scanning it, but is actually being told by two people. The first fourteen lines are being told by someone who is describing a photograph that they could possibly have in a photo album. The last twelve are being told by the person who has died in the lake the day before the photograph was taken (Davidson 63-65). While this is a hard thing to discover upon first glance, it makes perfect sense. Yet another meaning, acquired from is that Atwood wants the reader to “look deeper” than just what the poem has to say. There is the creator underneath the work just waiting to be realized for what they are, the creator of something unique, and their own. This is shown because the speaker is “hidden” beneath the surface of the lake, just as a poet, or any artist for that matter, is hidden beneath their words and works. The time that it takes the observer, or reader, to realize the author hidden beneath the work—before the end of the work—is perceptive of our failure at noticing details without knowing their meaning. The author of the work is actually the one who is guiding his/her perception into an accurate interpretation. This concludes to the fact that Atwood is commenting about the tendency for the reader of a work to ignore what is really going on inside of it.
Margaret Atwood, Writing Philosophy
WATERSTONE'S POETRY LECTURE
Delivered at Hay On Wye. Wales, June 1995.
I'm supposed to be talking in a vaguely autobiographical way about the connection between life and poetry, or at least between my life and my poetry. I recently read an account of a study which intends to show how writers of a certain age -- my age, roughly -- attempt to "seize control" of the stories of their own lives by deviously concocting their own biographies. However, it's a feature of our age that if you write a work of fiction, everyone assumes that the people and events in it are disguised biography -- but if you write your biography, it's equally assumed you're lying your head off.
Here then is the official version of my life as a poet:
I was once a snub-nosed blonde. My name was Betty. I had a perky personality and was a cheerleader for the college football team. My favourite colour was pink. Then I became a poet. My hair darkened overnight, my nose lengthened, I gave up football for the cello, my real name disappeared and was replaced by one that had a chance of being taken seriously by the literati, and my clothes changed colour in the closet, all by themselves, from pink to black. I stopped humming the songs from Oklahoma and began quoting Kirkegaard. And not only that -- all of my high heeled shoes lost their heels, and were magically transformed into sandals. Needless to say, my many boyfriends took one look at this and ran screaming from the scene as if their toenails were on fire. New ones replaced them; they all had beards.
Believe it or not, there is an element of truth in this story. It's the bit about the name, which was not Betty but something equally non-poetic, and with the same number of letters. It's also the bit about the boyfriends. But meanwhile, here is the real truth:
I became a poet at the age of sixteen. I did not intend to do it. It was not my fault.
Allow me to set the scene for you. The year was 1956. Elvis Presley had just appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show, from the waist up. At school dances, which were held in the gymnasium and smelled like armpits, the dance with the most charisma was rock'n'roll. The approved shoes were saddle shoes and white bucks, the evening gowns were strapless, if you could manage it; they had crinolined skirts that made you look like half a cabbage with a little radish head. Girls were forbidden to wear jeans to school, except on football days, when they sat on the hill to watch, and it was feared that the boys would be able to see up their dresses unless they wore pants. TV dinners had just been invented.
None of this -- you might think, and rightly -- was conducive to the production of poetry. If someone had told me a year previously that I would suddenly turn into a poet, I would have giggled. Yet this is what did happen.
I was in my fourth year of high school. The high school was in Toronto, which in the year 1956 was still known as Toronto the Good because of its puritanical liquor laws. It had a population of six hundred and fifty thousand, five hundred and nine people at the time, and was a synonym for bland propriety. The high school I attended was also a synonym for bland propriety, and although it has produced a steady stream of chartered accountants and one cabinet minister, no other poets have ever emerged from it, before or since.
The day I became a poet was a sunny day of no particular ominousness. I was walking across the football field, not because I was sports-minded or had plans to smoke a cigarette behind the field house -- the only other reason for going there -- but because this was my normal way home from school. I was scuttling along in my usual furtive way, suspecting no ill, when a large invisible thumb descended from the sky and pressed down on the top of my head. A poem formed. It was quite a gloomy poem: the poems of the young usually are. It was a gift, this poem -- a gift from an anonymous donor, and, as such, both exciting and sisnister at the same time.
I suspect this is the way all poets begin writing poetry, only they don't want to admit it, so they make up more rational explanations. But this is the true explanation, and I defy anyone to disprove it.
The poem that I composed on that eventful day, although entirely without merit or even promise, did have some features. It rhymed and scanned, because we had been taught rhyming and scansion at school. The fact is that at the time I became a poet, I had read very few poems written after the year 1900. I knew nothing of modernism or free verse. These were not the only things I knew nothing of. I had no idea, for instance, that I was about to step into a whole set of preconceptions and social roles which had to do with what poets were like, how they should behave, and what they ought to wear; moreover, I did not know that the rules about these things were different if you were female. I did not know that "poetess" was an insult, and that I myself would some day be called one. I did not know that to be told I had transcended my gender would be considered a compliment. I didn't know -- yet -- that black was compulsory. All of that was in the future. When I was sixteen, it was simple. Poetry existed; therefore it could be written; and nobody had told me -- yet -- the many, many reasons why it could not be written by me.
At first glance, there was little in my background to account for the descent of the large thumb of poetry onto the top of my head. But let me try to account for my own poetic genesis.
I was born on November 18, 1939, in the Ottawa General Hospital, two and a half months after the beginning of the Second World War. Being born at the beginning of the war gave me a substratum of anxiety and dread to draw on, which is very useful to a poet. It also meant that I was malnourished. This is why I am short. If it hadn't been for food rationing, I would have been six feet tall. I saw my first balloon in 1946, one that had been saved from before the war. It was inflated for me as a treat when I had the mumps on my sixth birthday, and it broke immediately. This was a major influence on my later work.
As for my birth month, a detail of much interest to poets, obsessed as they are with symbolic systems of all kinds: I was not pleased, during my childhood, to have been born in November, as there wasn't much inspiration for birthday party motifs. February children got hearts, May ones flowers, but what was there for me? A cake surrounded by withered leaves? November was a drab, dark and wet month, lacking even snow; its only noteworthy festival was Remembrance Day. But in adult life I discovered that November was, astrologically speaking, the month of sex, death and regeneration, and that November First was the Day of the Dead. It still wouldn't have been much good for birthday parties, but it was just fine for poetry, which tends to revolve a good deal around sex and death, with regeneration optional.
Six months after I was born, I was taken by packsack to a remote cabin in north-western Quebec, where my father was doing research as a forest entomologist. I should add here that my parents were unusual for their time. Both of them liked being as far away from civilization as possible, my mother because she hated housework and tea parties, my father because he liked chopping wood. They also weren't much interested in what the sociologists would call rigid sex-role stereotyping. This was a help to me in later life, and helped me to get a job at summer camp teaching small boys to start fires.
My childhood was divided between the forest, in the warmer parts of the year, and various cities, in the colder parts. I was thus able to develop the rudiments of the double personality so necessary for a poet. I also had lots of time for meditation. In the bush there were no theatres, movies, parades, or very functional radios; there were also not many other people. The result was that I learned to read early -- I was lucky enough to have a mother who read out loud, but she couldn't be doing it all the time and you had to amuse yourself with something or other when it rained. I became a reading addict, and have remained so ever since. "You'll ruin your eyes," I was told when caught at my secret vice under the covers with a flashlight. I did so, and would do it again. Like cigarette addicts who will smoke mattress stuffing if all else fails, I will read anything. As a child I read a good many things I shouldn't have, but this also is useful for poetry.
I created my first book of poetry at the age of five. To begin with, I made the book itself, cutting the pages out of scribbler paper and sewing them together in what I did not know was the traditional signature fashion. Then I copied into the book all the poems I could remember, and when there were some blank pages left at the end, I added a few of my own to complete it. This book was an entirely satisfying art object for me; so satisfying that I felt I had nothing more to say in that direction, and gave up writing poetry altogether for another eleven years.
My English teacher from 1955, run to ground by some documentary crew trying to explain my life, said that in her class I had showed no particular promise. This was true. Until the descent of the giant thumb, I showed no particular promise. I also showed no particular promise for some time afterwards, but I did not know this. A lot of being a poet consists of willed ignorance. If you woke up from your trance and realized the nature of the life-threatening and dignity-destroying precipice you were walking along, you would switch into actuarial sciences immediately.
If I had not been ignorant in this particular way, I would not have announced to an assortment of my high school female friends, in the cafeteria one brown-bag lunchtime, that I was going to be a writer. I said "writer," not "poet;" I did have some common sense. But my announcement was certainly a conversation-stopper. Sticks of celery were suspended in mid-crunch, peanut-butter sandwiches paused halfway between table and mouth; nobody said a word. One of those present reminded me of this incident recently -- I had repressed it -- and said she had been simply astounded. "Why?," I said. "Because I wanted to be a writer?" "No," she said. "Because you had the guts to say it out loud." But I was not conscious of having guts, or even of needing them. We obsessed folks, in our youth, are oblivious to the effects of our obsessions; only later do we develop enough cunning to conceal them, or at least to avoid mentioning them at cocktail parties. The one good thing to be said about announcing yourself as a writer in the colonial Canadian fifties is that nobody told me I couldn't do it because I was a girl. They simply found the entire proposition ridiculous. Writers were dead and English, or else extremely elderly and American; they were not sixteen years old and Canadian. It would have been worse if I'd been a boy, though. Never mind the fact that all the really stirring poems I'd read at that time had been about slaughter, mayhem, sex and death --poetry was thought of as existing in the pastel female realm, along with embroidery and flower arranging. If I'd been male I would probably have had to roll around in the mud, in some boring skirmish over whether or not I was a sissy. I'll skip over the embarrassingly bad poems I published in the high school year book -- had I no shame? -- well, actually, no -- mentioning only briefly the word of encouragement I received from my wonderful Grade 12 English teacher, Miss Bessie Billings -- "I can't understand a word of this, dear, so it must be good." I will not go into the dismay of my parents, who worried -- with good reason -- over how I would support myself. I will pass over my flirtation with journalism as a way of making a living, an idea I dropped when I discovered that in the fifties -- unlike now -- female journalists always ended up writing the obituaries and the ladies' page.
But how was I to make a living? There was not a roaring market in poetry, there, then. I thought of running away and being a waitress, which I later tried, but got very tired and thin; there's nothing like clearing away other people's mushed-up dinners to make you lose your appetite. Finally I went into English Literature at university, having decided in a cynical manner that I could always teach to support my writing habit.
After a year or two of keeping my head down and trying to pass myself off as a normal person, I made contact with the five other people at my university who were interested in writing; and through them, and some of my teachers, I discovered that there was a whole subterranean Wonderland of Canadian writing that was going on just out of general earshot and sight. It was not large -- in 1960 you were doing well to sell 200 copies of a book of poems by a Canadian, and a thousand novels was a best-seller; there were only five literary magazines, which ran on the life blood of their editors; but it was very integrated. Once in -- that is, once published in a magazine -- it was as if you'd been given a Masonic handshake or a key to the underground railroad. All of a sudden you were part of a conspiracy. People sometimes ask me about my influences; these were, by and large, the Canadians poets of my own generation and that just before mine. P.K. Page, Margaret Avison, Jay Macpherson, James Reaney, Irving Layton, Leonard Cohen, Al Purdy, D.G. Jones, Eli Mandel, John Newlove, Gwendolyn MacEwen, Michael Ondaatje, Pat Lane, George Bowering, Milton Acorn, A.M. Klein, Alden Nowlan, Elizabeth Brewster, Anne Wilkinson -- these are some of the poets who were writing and publishing then, whom I knew, and whose poetry I read. People writing about Canadian poetry at that time spoke a lot about the necessity of creating a Canadian literature. There was a good deal of excitement, and the feeling that you were in on the ground floor, so to speak.
So poetry was a vital form, and it quickly acquired a public dimension. Above ground the bourgeoisie reined supreme, in their two-piece suits and ties and camel-hair coats and pearl earrings (not all of this worn by the same sex); but at night the Bohemian world came alive, in various nooks and crannies of Toronto, sporting black turtlenecks, drinking coffee at little tables with red-checked tablecloths and candles stuck in chianti bottles, in coffee houses, -- well -- in the one coffee house in town-- listening to jazz and folk singing, reading their poems out loud as if they'd never heard it was stupid, and putting swear words into them. For a twenty-year-old this was intoxicating stuff. By this time I had my black wardrobe more or less together, and had learned not to say, "Well, hi there!" in sprightly tones. I was publishing in little magazines, and shortly thereafter I started to write reviews for them too. I didn't know what I was talking about, but I soon began to find out. Every year for four years, I put together a collection of my poems and submitted it to a publishing house; every year it was -- to my dismay then, to my relief now -- rejected. Why was I so eager to be published right away? Like all twenty-one-year-old poets, I thought I would be dead by thirty, and Sylvia Plath had not set a helpful example. For a while there, you were made to feel that, if a poet and female, you could not really be serious about it unless you'd made at least one suicide attempt. So I felt I was running out of time. My poems were still not very good, but by now they showed -- how shall I put it? -- a sort of twisted and febrile glimmer. In my graduating year, a group of them won the main poetry prize at the University. Madness took hold of me, and with the aid of a friend, and another friend's flatbed press, we printed them. A lot of poets published their own work then; unlike novels, poetry was short, and therefore cheap to do. We had to print each poem separately, and then disassemble it, as there were not enough as for the whole book; the cover was done with a lino-block. We printed 250 copies, and sold them through bookstores, for 50 cents each. They now go in the rare book trade for eighteen hundred dollars a pop. Wish I'd kept some.
Three years or so later -- after two years at graduate school at the dreaded Harvard University, two broken engagements, a year of living in a tiny rooming-house room and working at a market research company which was more fun than a barrel of drugged monkeys and a tin of orange-flavoured rice pudding -- and after the massive rejection of my first novel, and of several other poetry collections as well -- and not to mention my first confusing trip to Europe, I ended up in British Columbia, teaching grammar to Engineering students at eight-thirty in the morning in a Quonset hut. It was all right, as none of us were awake; I made them write imitations of Kafka, which I thought might help them in their chosen profession.
In comparison with the few years I had just gone through, this was sort of like going to heaven. I lived in an apartment built on top of somebody's house, and had scant furniture; but not only did I have a 180 degree view of Vancouver harbour, but I also had all night to write in. I taught in the daytime, ate canned food, did not wash my dishes until all of them were dirty -- the biologist in me became very interested in the different varieties of moulds that could be grown on leftover Kraft dinner -- and stayed up until four in the morning. I completed, in that one year, my first officially-published book of poems and my first published novel, which I wrote on blank exam booklets, as well as a number of short stories and the beginnings of two other novels, later completed. It was an astonishingly productive year for me.
This first book of poems was called The Circle Game; I designed the cover myself, using stick-on dots-- we were very cost-effective in those days -- and to everyone's surprise, especially mine, it won a prize called The Governor General's Award, which in Canada was the big one to win. Literary prizes are a crapshoot, and I was lucky that year. I was back at Harvard by then, mopping up the uncompleted work for my doctorate -- I never did finish it -- and living with three roommates, whose names were Judy and Sue and Karen. To collect the prize I had to attend a ceremony in Ottawa, at Government House, which meant dressups-- and it was obvious to all of us, as we went through the two items in my wardrobe, that I had nothing to wear. Sue leant me the dress and earrings, Judy the shoes, and while I was away they incinerated my clunky rubber-soled Hush Puppy shoes, having decided that these did not go with my new, poetic image.
This was an act of treachery, but they were right. I was now a recognised poet, and had a thing or two to live up to. It took me a while to get the hair right, but I have finally settled down with a sort of modified Celtic look, which is about the only thing available to me short of baldness. I no longer feel I'll be dead by thirty; now it's sixty. I suppose these deadlines we set for ourselves are really a way of saying we appreciate time, and want to use all of it. I'm still writing, I'm still writing poetry, I still can't explain why, and I'm still running out of time. My own theory is that poetry is composed with the melancholy side of the brain, and that if you do nothing but, you may find yourself going slowly down a long dark tunnel with no exit. I have avoided this by being ambidextrous: I write novels too. But when I find myself writing poetry again, it always has the surprise of that first unexpected and anonymous gift.