Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2018

The Current Transcript for August 31, 2018

Host: Connie Walker

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

Canada if you're listening to this, make your decision in the right for the Indigenous people and the taxpayers of this land, and quash and halt that project.

CONNIE WALKER: Chief Judy Wilson along with some other Indigenous and environmental groups are calling on the government to drop the Trans Mountain pipeline project altogether. But the Liberals have vowed to forge ahead. Federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau is standing by to shed some light on where his government goes from here. Plus one of the pallbearer's at the late U.S. Senator John McCain's memorial tomorrow will be a Russian dissident named Vladimir Kara-Murza. His presence at the ceremony should send quite a message to Russian President Vladimir Putin because according to Kara-Murza it was Putin who tried to kill him with poison.

SOUNDCLIP

Basically within a couple of days all of my major body organs shut down -- in a cascade one after another multiple organ failure of the lungs, the liver, the kidneys, the heart everything.

CW: He lived to tell the tale and we'll revisit Anna Maria Tremonti's conversation with Vladimir Kara-Murza in half an hour. After that, they are some of the most popular books around yet not everyone will own up to reading romance novels.

SOUNDCLIP

It's nobody's business what you're reading first of all -- and their escapism. With a romance novel you know you're going to have a happy ever after.

CW: In an hour, discussing the literary merits of steamy romances. I'm Connie Walker and this is the summer edition of The Current.

Pipeline purchase 'a positive financial' investment for Canada's economy: finance minister

Guests: Bill Morneau, Harvey McLeod

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN HORGAN: I'm not unlike many, many British Columbians who have held the view that our coast was not considered by the National Energy Board and I feel that those citizens have been vindicated today.

RACHEL NOTLEY: It is ridiculous. We can't stand for it. That's why for now we are pulling out of the National Climate Plan -- and I'm calling on the federal government again to take this to the Supreme Court. To call an emergency session of parliament to fix this mess and to get construction restarted.

CW: Indignation and vindication from either side of the provincial divide, that was Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and before that B.C. Premier John Horgan with their very different reactions to yesterday's bombshell court decision on the Trans Mountain pipeline. The pipeline's expansion has been stopped in its tracks by the Federal Court of Appeal. The court found that the National Energy Board's review was so flawed that the government should not have relied on it and that the government had failed to properly consult with First Nations. It's a setback for a Liberal government that has made the pipeline a marquee project and purchased the project for 4.5 billion dollars. Bill Morneau is the Federal Minister of Finance and he's with me on the phone from Toronto. Hello.

BILL MORNEAU: Good morning Connie. I'm happy to be on your show this morning.

CW: Well thanks for joining us. We just heard Premier Rachel Notley calling on your government to immediately launch an appeal to the Supreme Court and to reconvene an emergency session of parliament. What is your government going to do following this decision?

BILL MORNEAU: Maybe I can step back and just reinforce how important it is for us to assure that we have access to international markets for our resources. So that was the frame that we came into this and recognised that there were risks that a private sector company couldn't deal with in ensuring that we get our resources to markets other than the United States. This ruling has told us really what we've been saying from day one and that is that to get things like this done we need to meaningfully engage with Indigenous Canadians. We need to assure that we have environmental protections that are absolutely best in class.

CW: If you've already been considering those, why was this decision quashed?

BILL MORNEAU: We started really from day one to look at how we could take a process that was flawed -- the process of reviewing pipelines that the Harper government put in place really led to an outcome that was unacceptable in the previous pipeline discussion -- the Northern Gateway discussion. We put in place a new process. The court has said that they believe that we need to reconsider the engagement of Indigenous Canadians. We're going to have to take a look at that decision and analyze it and evaluate it to make absolutely certain that that engagement is robust. We also heard from the court's decision that we need to assure that environmental protections are in place. Now the court didn't consider the actual -- the plan that we put in place to protect the oceans. So we need to assure that we are dealing with the issues in a way that gives Canadians confidence. But step back to the overall goal here, the goal is to make sure that we are responsibly dealing with the economy and the environment, that's the path we've been on. We need to consider this decision obviously and we'll do that and respond in a way that assures that we meet our overall goal.

CW: So you said yesterday that you wanted the project to go forward in "the right way" but the court found that you did not adequately or meaningfully consult with Indigenous people. How will you approach consultations differently this time?

BILL MORNEAU: I think Connie we need to properly consider the decision of the court. It's more than 275 pages. We will be analyzing that decision to assure that that engagement is meaningful. That's really what we've been saying from day one. I mean the reason we didn't get pipelines to international markets with the Harper government for a decade was very clearly because the approach which was not considering legitimate Indigenous issues and not considering the concerns that the people have for the environment meant that there wasn't the confidence that we could move forward. We had a reinforcement today that the economy and the environment -- they need to be considered together. We have to do that. This is why the federal government is in this project. We've said that in order to deal with the risks -- the political risks that you heard about beginning of your show from British Columbia and Alberta, in order to deal with the legal risks we need the federal government to be there and do it in a responsible way so that Canada -- Canadians get the benefits but we do it in the way that the people expect us to do.

CW: Well I just want to get back to this commitment for a meaningful dialogue. Some people are questioning how you can commit to meaningful dialogue with First Nations who are staunchly opposed to the pipeline if you've already determined what the end result will be that you're going ahead with it.

BILL MORNEAU: You know we have in our estimation no choice but to engage meaningfully. I think the court question the actual way that that was done. The court actually did say that the process we put in place, after the Northern Gateway approach, was a significant improvement. But they're just questioning the actual way that it was conducted. I really don't know that we've been able to fully consider all of the issues put forward by the court quite yet. But we're going to. We need to assure that we have the confidence in order to do this. You know from my perspective as the finance minister, in order for our economy to remain healthy over the long term we need to have this sort of confidence that we're doing things in a way that is long term sustainable.

CW: Speaking of the financial implications; immediately after this decision was released Kinder Morgan shareholders approved the sale of the pipeline to the government. Why is that? Why is the government still planning to buy this pipeline?

BILL MORNEAU: Well the pipeline is a positive financial decision in and of itself. But longer term and more importantly it's a way for us to be able to assure that our resources get international prices. The current situation is that 99 percent of our resources go to the U.S. market and if there's a day when we know that we can't rely on just one market it might well be today when we're in an intensive phase of negotiating NAFTA. We've said that we need to have international markets -- that diversification is important. So it was a pipeline that has been operating since 1953. It's financially in a good position and now it gives us the opportunity to expand it to get to international markets. I think that was the driver here in recognizing our role.

CW: I want to go to a clip. The opposition is accusing the federal government of bungling a major project that they agree is in the national interest. Here's some of what Conservative leader Andrew Scheer said yesterday.

SOUNDCLIP

ANDREW SCHEER: This was a 4.9 billion dollar acquisition with no plan for completion. And today we find out that the goalposts have been missed again by this Trudeau government. So they are going to have to answer those types of questions and we're going to hold them to account on how they've managed to get this project to this state.

CW: What do you say to Canadian taxpayers who are now on the hook for billions of dollars?

BILL MORNEAU: The best way to start off here is to recognize the importance of assuring that our investment climate is one that's strong today and strong tomorrow. Doing that means we need to consider when in rare situations the federal government has a role. In our view this is a role -- getting our resources to international markets. The purchase of the pipeline as I've said was really only because of the kinds of risks -- the political risk and the other risks that the private sector cannot deal with, we do intend to move it back to the private sector after we've [inaudible] it. What is ironic from Andrew Scheer speaking is that the previous Harper government was unable to get any sort of pipeline to international markets because the process that they followed was flawed. It didn't have the kind of engagement required. We're going to take this decision. We're going to analyze it and ensure that we can deal with the issues in a responsible way so that we actually move forward. You know our government is the one that has moved forward with this because we know that we have to have a strong economy. We need to respect our environment. These two things go together. And our approach will work.

CW: How are you going to balance the interests of the oil industry with the concerns of environmental and Indigenous groups who are opposed to this issue?

BILL MORNEAU: The important thing here is that we will have a process that will be run -- that will consider the input from Indigenous Canadians and engage in a meaningful way. It will of course reinforce our need to communicate how we deal with any potential environmental risks. That will be arm's length from you know the Department of Finance who will be trying to ensure that the economics of the project stays sound. That's an important issue. It's going to be one that will be moving forward on as we consider this decision.

CW: What do you say now to people in the Alberta oil patch and Albertans who are counting on this pipeline and have been you know hoping that it was going to get started shortly?

BILL MORNEAU: We heard some frustration on the phone or on your radio show earlier from Premier Notley. I understand that frustration of course. We want to move forward but we really do need to recognize that this reinforces exactly what we've been saying there's no way forward on important projects without engagement.

CW: But you knew that before the project was approved right? This isn't the first -- the energy project that has been quashed because of these concerns. Why wasn't the process changed before the approval?

BILL MORNEAU: Well in fact Connie the process was changed. So we changed the process in a way that the court actually opined that it was positive. What it said was that the engagement needed to be deeper. So we do need to respect not only what the process is but how it's done. We will do that.

CW: So what is next for your government? You heard Premier Notley calling for an immediate appeal or to reconvene an emergency session of parliament. What is the plan next for this pipeline project?

BILL MORNEAU: On this project we need to take the time -- but to do it very rapidly, to look at the decision. The court has asked us to come back promptly. We will do so. And that's going to have to be a considered response. The overall response is that we remain resolved to assure that we have a strong economy for the long term and that we have an absolutely sustainable approach to our environment. That's the bigger goal. We're going to stay on that path. We know that that's the right path. For me and my role, the context is always thinking about how we can not only ensure that the economy is working. You know yesterday we also had some financial results in our economy which were very strong.

CW: Sorry I just want to quickly ask you about the climate plan. It has already been opposed by the governments of Saskatchewan and Ontario, now Alberta has pulled out and said the plan isn't worth the paper it's written on. Where does this lead the Federal Climate Plan?

BILL MORNEAU: We've been clear from day one that we need to have an approach to dealing with climate -- that plan is intact. Our plan always had both the recognition that some provinces, provinces like British Columbia and Quebec are good examples, will have a robust approach to pricing pollution and that remains important. But it also had in it part of the plan that said if provinces decide not to move forward that the federal government will put in place. We'll put in place a price on pollution and what we've said is we'll put the money back to people in the provinces. So really our plan is simple, price pollution make polluters pay but make sure that middle class Canadians actually get the money back. And that's exactly what we intend on doing in those provinces that decide that they're not going to do something individually. And in some cases that will be their choice that will make sense. There will be a plan to price pollution in this country. That has been our commitment and it's critically important especially when we look at the decision that came yesterday. We heard that we need to have an approach to dealing with engaging Canadians so we're listening to their issues and that's what we need to do with Indigenous Canadians in particular on that project. And we need to deal with the environment. These are not optional, these are our must do issues. And that's exactly where we've been on and we'll continue on that path.

CW: Okay well thank you for joining me this morning.

BILL MORNEAU: Well thank you very much and best wishes for the day.

CW: Bill Morneau is Federal Finance Minister. He was in Toronto.

SOUNDCLIP

[Singing]

VOICE 1: We're not here to fight with you. We're here to protect what we need to protect for our future generations and that is the bottom line.

VOICE 2: I think this is a new day in terms of respecting Indigenous rights, governance, and decision making. And the centuries old approach of doing the least possible and trying to get away with the least possible on the behalf of the federal government when it comes to Indigenous people... those days are over.

CW: Some celebrations in B.C. after yesterday's court decision which many Indigenous people are welcoming as a victory. Harvey McLeod is the Chief of Upper Nicola, one of the First Nations who sued the federal government over the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. We've reached Chief McLeod at his home in Quilchena, B.C. Hello.

HARVEY MCLEOD: Good morning Connie.

CW: So Chief what was your reaction yesterday when you first heard about the court's decision?

HARVEY MCLEOD: One, I was at shock but at the same time very relieved that Upper Nicola was heard.

CW: You were surprised?

HARVEY MCLEOD: Yes I was surprised because the whole project and the process of getting approval and implementation of the project you know we were always on the other side -- wanting to have discussions, wanting to have clarification, wanting to put some solutions on the table. And all of rhetoric and questions fell short of being answered or even being heard. And the court confirmed that.

CW: The court said that the federal government had not met its obligations to consult with First Nations. What were your experiences during those consultations with Ottawa over this project?

HARVEY MCLEOD: A lot of frustration. The process was designed for us to have dialogue with a group of you know very good people but they came to the table with no authorities or no decision making powers. So we basically talk to the groups and to the individuals who went back and had discussions with the federal government, the decision makers, then came back with the answers and that was a long-drawn out process. And very frustrating from our side and I imagine that was very frustrating for the federal government. And as a result of that a lot of the concerns and issues that Upper Nicola had were not heard before that decision was made to approve the project.

CW: Kinder Morgan released a statement yesterday saying that it remains committed to building the project "consideration of communities and the environment with meaningful consultation with Indigenous people and for the benefit of Canadians." Do you see a way forward for the expansion if there are better consultations and more rigorous review? Or do you hope this decision kills the project altogether?

HARVEY MCLEOD: It has been a position of Upper Nicola, our community and citizens here of Upper Nicola who live alongside that pipeline, and one of the concerns we had -- one of the issues we made and you heard it from the minister that you were just speaking to, you heard it from the Premier of Alberta, and you hear it from you know from a lot of people -- there are a lot of camps that feel that we are all being held hostage. The government being held hostage. The province of Alberta being held hostage. The pipeline being held hostage. And we being held hostage. So we're looking for a way on how we can get together. How we can get along together because for the last century we've been having this discussion how do we coexist in this country. And we've been a lot of the times put aside and we have to go to the courts to get some space to allow all of us to come together and have serious discussions to ensure that when we make decisions we're being heard.

CW: Very quickly, Prime Minister Trudeau has talked a lot about reconciliation and respect in building those better relationships with First Nations. How well has he done so far?

HARVEY MCLEOD: It has been a difficult process because one of the issues -- one of the concerns that I have personally, is the definition of reconciliation. I know that from the Prime Minister comes from a space and understanding of what that looks like and what that feels like to him and to his government. And I have similar -- I have my own definition of what that means and the community of Upper Nicola has some sense of what that is all about. But we've never had dialogues on how we're going to do that. Yes, there has been a lot of change in dialogue over the last two years on having some discussions. We know that there's a lot of change happening but the only thing that we have been doing is doing a lot of talk.

CW: All right I'm sorry Chief McLeod but we're going to have to leave it there. Thank you for joining us.

HARVEY MCLEOD: Thank you.

CW: Harvey McLeod is Chief of Upper Nicola, one of the First Nations that successfully sued the federal government over the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project. He was in Quilchena, B.C.. The CBC News is next. Then, we'll get a look at what's in store for the new season of The Current when Anna Maria Tremonti drops by the studio for a chat about some of what she has been working on. I'm Connie Walker and you're listening to this summer edition of The Current.

Kremlin opponent, poisoned twice, vows to keep on fighting

CW: Hello I'm Connie Walker and you're listening to the summer edition of The Current. Still to come, as we head into the final long weekend of the summer it may be your last chance to break out that book you've been meaning to read. And if it happens to be a romance novel there's no shame in that, right? A decision earlier this year by the Toronto Public Library to seek out a writer of romances as its next writer-in-residence sparked a debate about the literary merits of romance novels. We'll jump back into it in our next half hour. But first, what's in store on The Current this September. The Current's new season launches Monday and that means Anna Maria Tremonti is back at work. Hi Anna Maria.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Hi Connie.

CW: Welcome back. So you've already been out on the road collecting stories?

AMT: I just got back from Humboldt and other parts of Saskatchewan. Your home province.

CW: My home province.

AMT: Yeah. And it was really interesting you know that Humboldt was in the midst of its hockey camp and they're picking a new team for a new season. And there's just a lot of raw emotion there. It has been five months since that horrific bus crash and as you can imagine people are processing on lots of levels. There's individual grief and then there's collective grief. And we spoke to some parents who were there with their kids trying out for the team -- from other places, other provinces, and they told us their kids just really want to be and to be part of that team because they were so moved by what happened and by the outpouring. At the same time we expected to talk to the mother of one young player who had died and she said, you know I haven't even really had a chance to grieve. So it's also interesting right because there's so much media attention there and it raises lots of questions about does that -- on one level that support and all that attention from the public and the media helps, on the other side is that an obstacle toward moving forward? And I don't think anyone really has an answer yet but there's a lot going on there.

CW: And it must be all brought to the surface again as they start to prepare for a new season of hockey because they're just moving forward. Rebuilding their team, right?

AMT: Absolutely. And you can't help but remember that evocative Amazing Grace sung on that rink in the arena the Sunday after the accident and now the sounds in that arena are of the blades on the ice and hockey sticks. And it's just that juxtaposition that life goes forward. And we'll be exploring all of that next week.

CW: So what else is coming up?

AMT: Well we are looking at a lot of big issues as we always do. We'll be looking with different perspectives on stories about war and conflict. I'll be talking to C.J. Chivers, one of my favorite war correspondents to read out of the New York Times, who has just written a book on the people he has followed over time in the Iraq and the Afghan wars. Something else though I just finished a book called The Tattooist of Auschwitz and it is a novel but it's based on very very closely related to the real life story of a man who was sent to Auschwitz from Slovakia who became the man who put the numbers on people's arms -- and the woman who met him in Australia years later, tried to make a movie out of his story. Never could do it. And she wrote this book. And it's not solely about what happened then, it's a reminder of the compromises and decisions people have to make in order to stay alive. And it's about humanity in the midst of brutality and there are lessons for us in there on many levels, so we're going to look at different perspectives on the big issues.

CW: Lots of interesting discussions. What do you have for us on Monday?

AMT: Well Monday I am talking to Vicente Fox, former Mexican president. As you know he tweets -- he has got a very very active and popular Twitter feed because he's always going after Donald Trump. But he's pretty strident on the wall. He's not happy with Mr. Trump, he says he accepts that that is who the American public has chosen but he thinks that Mr. Trump has an obligation to comport himself differently. He's really talking about medical marijuana as well, he's part of a Canadian company called Khiron, that is looking to provide medical marijuana not just in Canada but throughout Latin America. And he has been one of the people fighting for the decriminalization and legalization of other drugs as well. Heroin. Cocaine. And he feels very strongly about this and we'll hear why.

CW: Well I'm looking forward to that. Anna Maria have a great season. Talk to you soon. And I will definitely be listening in.

AMT: Thanks Connie.

CW: Tune in Monday for the new season of The Current with Anna Maria Tremonti. You're listening to the summer edition of The Current on CBC Radio One. I'm Connie Walker.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: In a hospital in Moscow, an outspoken critic of the Kremlin fights for his life. Vladimir Kara-Murza's wife Evgenia says her husband fell sick with sudden and mysterious organ failure last week.

REPORTER: What is your husband's official diagnosis right now?

EVGENIA: An acute intoxication by an unidentified substance.

REPORTER: What do you think that means?

EVGENIA: That's poisoning.

CW: A CNN report from last year about Vladimir Kara-Murza, one of Russian President Vladimir Putin's most outspoken opponents. The assassination attempt on Mr. Kara-Murza in February 2017 was the second he has faced and survived. The attempts on his life are part of a grim pattern of political violence and murder that shows no sign of stopping in Russia. Nevertheless Vladimir Kara-Murza is back working to oppose President Putin. He's the vice chairman of Open Russia, a Russian pro-democracy movement in the country and chairman of the Boris Nemtsov Foundation. And tomorrow, in Washington D.C. Mr. Kara-Murza will be one of the pallbearers at the memorial service for U.S. Senator John McCain. The late Senator considered Vladmir Kara-Murza a friend and had high praise for him here when he introduced his documentary on the life of Boris Nemtsov to an American audience.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN MCCAIN: My dear friends it's an honor to be here tonight with Vladimir Kara-Murza -- with the screening of his remarkable documentary, Nemtsov. Vladimir you have truly honored the example of your friend and comrade and your efforts to advance freedom and justice in Russia are a testament to your strength of character and love of your country.

CW: That was the late U.S. Senator John McCain introducing Vladimir Kara-Murza. Mr. Kara-Murza joined Anna Maria Tremonti in our Toronto studio last February. Here again is that interview.

AMT: Hello and welcome.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Thank you, Anna Maria. It's really great to be here and I sincerely mean this.

AMT: How are you? Are you fully recovered?

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Well I'm certainly much better than I was a year ago. I think it's fair to say that I'm mostly recovered. I mean there are some residual effects even from the first poisoning in 2015 that are going to last forever.

AMT: Tell me about the first time you were poisoned. What happened?

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: I was at a work meeting. It was in Moscow. It was in May of 2015. And suddenly I began to feel very, very sick for no apparent reason. And within a space of under an hour, I went from feeling completely normal like I am now to basically being incapacitated. You know my heart started racing. I suddenly had difficulty breathing. Began to vomit and to sweat. And you know after about a couple of hours I lost consciousness and I do not remember anything else. So what I'm going to say next is what I know from my wife, my friends, my colleagues, and the doctors. Basically within a couple of days all of my major body organs shut down in a cascade, one after another. Multiple organ failure. The lungs, the liver, the kidneys, the heart, everything. And I was in a coma, on artificial life support, hooked up to cables and machines. And the doctors told my wife that I had about a five percent chance to survive. So I'm very, very happy and very fortunate to be sitting here today.

AMT: They were moving you around from hospital to hospital trying to figure out what was wrong with you.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: They did because they didn't understand what was happening because the organs would fail one after another. So they would deal something then something else would give up. They would go to deal with that and then a third thing would collapse. And then finally after about a couple days they realized this was a central issue. It wasn’t to do with any particular organ. And so of course the diagnosis both times—the first time and a second time—as you just quoted my wife saying there from the CNN interview, "toxic action by an unidentified substance," which translated from medical into human language is poisoning. I was in a coma for about a month. Then it took me more than a year to more or less recover. I mean I had to learn to walk again and to do everything. It's amazing how fast your body can just lose all strength completely when you're in a coma. But by the end of 2015 I was back in Russia and back to my work up. At Open Russia we had a parliamentary election 2016—a so-called parliamentary election. But we feel it is our position at the Open Russian movement that we have to use even this sham and truncated electoral process to still put forward an alternative to the current regime and to help train those young people, so this is what we were doing. And I was also making a documentary about Boris Nemtsov. I was filming it through 2015-16. And then just as I began to screen this documentary around the country in February of 2017—exactly one-year ago—this happened all over again in exactly the same way. The same symptoms. Same diagnosis. The same chance of survival.

AMT: The same feeling.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Absolutely. I woke up in the middle of the night not being able to breathe and I have to tell you this is really frightening as well as painful.

AMT: Do you remember ingesting anything? Like how did you get poisoned? Do you know?

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Look, one thing we do know—to state the obvious given the way this was done—this was obviously some kind of a very powerful and sophisticated toxins. Not something you can go and buy in a pharmacy. Of course it leads my colleagues and me to make the conclusion that this bears the signature of the Russian domestic security services or at least of people connected to them. And as we well know the Soviet and then Russian domestic security services have perfected this practice of poisoning people for decades. They've had this lapse since the 1930s, developing these powerful toxins that are not only strong but also many of them untraceable. And you know as everybody knows they have been poisoning people, for example, in London in the last few years. I think it's not very difficult for them to do it in Moscow.

AMT: Is it something you could ever prove through toxicology? Were they able to do that? Were they able to look for something?

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: So the official diagnosis is "toxic action by an unidentified substance.”

AMT: 'Cause they can't figure it out.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Poisoning but they cannot figure out what it was.

AMT: They can't even figure out how you were poisoned?

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: No. As it was explained to me by people who know much more about this than I do. I am a historian education. I'm not a chemist by any means. But I do know about this more than I care to know after what happened. It's been explained to me that there are so many ways of ingesting a poison into a human being. It's better not to think about this. But food and drink is still the easiest. And as I said if they can poison people in London, I'm sure they have no trouble doing it in Moscow.

AMT: Well Vladimir, hold that thought. I am speaking to Vladimir Kara-Murza, an opposition leader to Russian President Putin. And I want to bring in another guest who is listening in. Amy Knight is an historian specializing in Russia. Her new book is called Orders to Kill: The Putin Regime and Political Murder. She joins us from New York City. Hello Amy Knight.

AMY KNIGHT: Hi Anna Maria.

AMT: How common has poison been as an assassination tool in Russia?

AMY KNIGHT: Well poison was used actually in the Stalin period as well. But what struck me when I was listening to Vladimir—you asked him whether this could be proven that whether this poison could be traced—it's interesting that in the case of Alexander Litvinenko who Vladimir alluded to, he was poisoned by polonium-210 in London in 2006. He was a former KGB, FSB officer. And the people who carried out this poison had counted it not being identified. And it was only because Litvinenko lived for over three weeks before he died that they were actually to find out what the poison was and then they were able to actually trace it back to the FSB.

AMT: He was having tea in a London hotel.

AMY KNIGHT: Yes, exactly.

AMT: They were able to trace it right to that. Did they not find trace elements of the radiation on a member of the Russian Duma?

AMY KNIGHT: Yes.

AMT: In his car or something.

AMY KNIGHT: Yes. Andrey Lugovoy and Kovtun inadvertently spread polonium everywhere they went in London. As one of the British commented "like Hansel and Gretel." They just spread these crumbs of polonium all over the place.

AMT: So how did political murder evolve after Vladimir Putin became president?

AMY KNIGHT: Well we saw quite a few murders, mainly back in the ‘90s under Yeltsin because of the Russian mafia arising and all sorts of battles over money and things like that. So Russia was becoming a pretty dangerous place if you were an oligarch, for example. People had to have protection. But then we had a very separate phenomena, which was getting rid of people who posed a threat to the regime. And in my book I talk about one of the first such murders, the killing of Galina Starovoitova in November 1998. Putin was not yet prime minister or president of Russia, but he was head of the FSB. And Starovoitova was a Russian Democrat who had a lot of enemies in St. Petersburg. They never really found who ordered the murder of Starovoitova.

AMT: What happened to her? How she was killed?

AMY KNIGHT: She was shot in the stairwell of her apartment building in St. Petersburg.

AMT: The murder of Litvinenko, is that the clearest link to Putin that you've identified?

AMY KNIGHT: I would say so. I don't know what Vladimir thinks about that. But it was really the only case where they made an effort to look into all the evidence. There was a hearing that was conducted by the British High Court and the Judge Sir Robert Owen after listening to months of testimony and seeing evidence was able to conclude that these two hired FSB thugs, Lugovoy and Kovtun actually did administer the poison- the polonium—to Litvinenko. Sir Robert equivocated it a little bit in tying it directly to Mr. Putin. He used the word "probably." And he talked about Putin and Putin's-then FSB chief who was also definitely responsible.

AMT: And of course that happened in Britain and there was great outrage because there were very disturbing traces of polonium left in Britain because of this. So suddenly another country got involved with a rule of law, right?

AMY KNIGHT: Yes, but interestingly enough it took a long-time before they had this public hearing. And there was quite a bit of resistance on the part of the British establishment because it presented some difficult diplomatic issues with Russia. For some of the members of the British government, they would have rather avoided confronting this very unpleasant fact that this murder was carried out on British soil.

AMT: Earlier, Vladimir you mentioned Boris Nemtsov. I have a clip right now that I'd like to play. This is a CBC News report from the National’s Susan Ormiston. It aired February 27th, 2015.

SOUNDCLIP

SUSAN ORMISTON: Shot in the back four times just before midnight Moscow time. Boris Nemtsov was walking with a woman on a bridge close to the Kremlin. A witness says a car stopped and several people shot him. Nemtsov, 55, was a prominent opposition leader. In politics more than 20 years rising to Deputy Premier in Boris Yeltsin's government and considered a possible successor. More recently Nemtsov had founded the People's Freedom Party and was mounting a large opposition rally this Sunday in Moscow. Tonight President Putin condemned the killing. But many will believe this was the work of assassins close to the government.

AMT: Valdimir Kara-Murza, you were close to Boris Nemtsov. Tell me about the moment you learned of his murder.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Well that is a moment that will forever divide my life into the before and after. I remember that day almost to the minute. That morning I come back to Moscow from Tomsk in Siberia, and just had some sort of you know meetings, conversations all day, and exchanging messages with Boris and we were supposed to see each other the following day actually February 28th. I was supposed to go to his house. And the last kind of message exchange that I still have on my phone—I cannot put myself to delete it I still have it—it's "See you tomorrow," and it's dated 11:13 p.m. He was killed 11:31 p.m. This was personal for me. He was not just a political colleague. He was not just an opposition leader. He was a very close friend. He was actually godfather to one of my children. But he was also the most prominent, the most effective, and simply put the strongest leader of the opposition to Vladimir Putin's regime. In the opposition to the corruption, to the authoritarianism, to the aggressive behaviour, to all the hallmarks of the current system of authoritarian kleptocracy that we have in Russia. I think it’s very remarkable. Boris Nemtsov was a member of the very top political establishment in Russia. Boris Nemtsov could have easily chosen to either play by the new rules or to just leave public life to find a plush place in government or in business or in the worst case scenario to leave the country—so many others have also done. But this was not possible for him because he was a passionate Russian patriot and he could not just stand idly by and watch these things being done to our country; watch the future and the prospects of our country being destroyed by an authoritarian kleptocracy. So he chose to stay and he chose to fight. And his voice was the loudest and the clearest voice for years in opposition to everything Putin was doing.

AMT: President Putin said he would take personal control of the investigation into the killing. How did that work out?

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Well it will soon be three years since the day Boris Nemtsov was assassinated on the bridge in front of the Kremlin. This is the most secure location probably in the entire Europe, not just in Moscow. I mean you cannot stand on that bridge for two minutes without plainclothes policemen running towards you and asking what are you doing. And of course there are dozens of security cameras that apparently had no footage from that evening. And in these three years that have passed since his assassination, five alleged perpetrators have been sentenced and convicted by a Russian court. And even if we just look at this official story, the man who was convicted of pulling the trigger—his name is Zaur Dadayev—at the time of the assassination of Boris Nemtsov, he was a serving officer of the Interior Ministry of the Russian Federation of the Interior Troops. And his commander was on the one side, General Viktor Zolotov, Commander of the Interior Troops and one of the people closest to Vladimir Putin. And on the other hand his commander was Ramzan Kadyrov, the Putin appointed strongman in the Chechen Republic. And when those alleged perpetrators—now convicted perpetrators—were arrested, General Alexander Bastrykin, who is the head of the investigation committee, the top law enforcement agency in Russia, has publicly declared that the case is solved and the case is closed. Any expert in criminology will tell you that you cannot consider a case solved and closed unless you have those who ordered and organized it, not just a low level, not just the actual perpetrators are carried out. And three years on, nobody is really even pretending to look for the organizers and masterminds and there's continuing official cover up and continuing impunity for the organizers and masterminds of the highest profile political assassination in modern Russia.

AMT: At the end of this month, outside the Russian embassy in Washington—the street outside that embassy—will be named after Boris Nemtsov. How do you think that's going go over in the Kremlin?

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Frankly, I couldn't care less how it will go over in the Kremlin. I think there can be nothing more pro-Russian than to name a street in front of the Russian Embassy after a Russian statesman. We have been working on this initiative together with members of the U.S. Congress and members of the Washington D.C. City Council for more than a year now. And literally a few days ago the D.C. Council took the final vote and unanimously approved the measure. And on February 27th the political colleagues’, friends, and family members of Boris Nemtsov, along with members of the U.S. Congress and members of the D.C. Council will gather for the official unveiling of unveiling of Boris Nemtsov plaza. This will be the first official commemoration of Boris Nemtsov anywhere in the world. And we're very grateful to citizens and to elected representatives and free countries that are doing this on our behalf. And I know there will be in the next few days an initiative announced right here in Canada for commemorations of Boris Nemtsov in Ottawa and Toronto. And this is being led by my very good friend are Irwin Cotler, the former justice minister of Canada and the former member of parliament. And Marcus Kolga who is a prominent activist here in Toronto and we are very grateful to them also for doing what we in Russia for now cannot do.

AMT: Amy Knight, we are talking about the killing of people involved in politics and trying to force a new kind of politics in Russia. Journalists in Russia have been targeted in as well. Give me an idea of the level of street violence against reporters.

AMY KNIGHT: Well the most famous or infamous case is of course Anna Politkovskaya, as she was murdered a week shot again in the stairwell of her apartment building just a month before the Litvinenko was poisoned. She knew that she faced danger. There is absolutely no question about it. But she like Nemtsov and many others, she was so courageous. And again she gave the Kremlin good reason to want her dead because she was a tireless reporter on the atrocities that were committed in Chechnya for example.

AMT: And she was not alone in the journalist killed, was she?

AMY KNIGHT: No. I mean we've seen other journalists being shot and beaten up. It's been a repeated pattern.

AMT: In her case there were trials and convictions. Was there any reason to question that justice was served in that case?

AMY KNIGHT: Well the Politkovskaya case is a lot like Nemtsov case. They find that triggermen, but they never really find the mastermind.

AMT: Valdimir Kara-Murza, has Russia's security service succeeded in undermining opposition through these killings?

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Well I think today we see that despite the killings, despite the threats, despite the dozens of people imprisoned for their political views—let's not forget about them either—despite all of this there are people today, many people, who are not just increasingly opposing the current regime but are prepared to do something about it.

AMT: There are elections next month.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: So-called elections. Yes.

AMT: Mr. Putin has barred Alexei Navalny, an opponent from running. How vocal can the opponents be?

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: You know it's not difficult to win an election when your opponents are not actually on the ballot. And when people speak about the so-called high popularity of Vladimir Putin, let's remember that this popularity—so-called popularity—was never tested in a free or fair election against genuine opponents. And I think a much better way of judging the real standing of the current regime, a much better way than bogus election figures or doctored opinion polls, is by the behaviour of the regime itself. A popular government would not need to rig elections one after the other. A popular government would not need to put its opponents in prison. It would not need to beat up and arrest and detain demonstrators of peaceful opposition rallies or censor television or threaten journalists. Now this is the behaviour of a regime that feels uncertain and insecure. And I think looking at those mass protests that we've been seeing in the last few months around the country, most of the participants in which were young people, the younger generation. I think frankly the Kremlin has right to be worried.

AMT: After that last attempt on your life have you maybe time to get out? Like maybe you should stop. You've got a wife and child. You've survived twice.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: I have a wife and three children.

AMT: And three children.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: That are outside of Russia for obvious reasons. But I feel that those of us who are the public faces of the opposition have a responsibility to continue our work. Again I think the best gift we could give to this regime is if we gave up and ran and that's not something we’re intending to do.

AMT: You have said this is your country.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: This is our country. And I think our country deserves so much better. And our people deserve so much better. But it's also very hopeful to see more and more young people. The people who were raised and certainly in many cases born under Vladimir Putin. Don't forget Russian citizens all turn 18 and come to vote for the first time in these so-called presidential elections next month will have been people born under Vladimir Putin. That's how long he's been in power. And increasingly more and more people in that generation, are beginning to rise up and say 'we've had enough of this'. And I think this is a very worrying sign for the Kremlin and Mr. Putin, but a very hopeful sign for the future of Russia.

AMT: We have to leave it there. Thank you both for your insights. Thank you.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Thank you very much.

AMY KNIGHT: Thank you.

CW: Vladimir Kara-Murza is a critic of President Putin. The vice chairman of Open Russia, a pro-democracy movement in Russia, and chairman of the Boris Nemtsov Foundation. He spoke with Anna Maria Tremonti in February. Tomorrow in Washington D.C. Vladimir Kara-Murza will be one of the pallbearers at the memorial service for the late U.S. John McCain. Anna Maria also spoke with Amy Knight the author of Orders to Kill: The Putin Regime and Political Murder. When we first aired that interview we contacted the Russian Embassy in Canada to comment on the allegations made against the Putin government, the embassy's spokesperson replied "We don't comment on hearsay and fake news." Coming up in our next half hour, why the stigma around steamy romance novels. The Toronto Public Library's writer-in-residence is a writer of romances. We bring together some lovers and haters of the massively popular genre to discuss. I'm Connie Walker and you're listening to the summer edition of The Current.

There's underlying sexism when the romance genre is criticized, novelists say

CW: I'm Connie Walker and you're listening to this summer edition of The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Newly single after a rocky breakup with her self-absorbed fiancé, newspaper columnist, Jessica crashes her car in a lightning storm and soon finds herself dodging bullets in the Wild West. Before the night is out, she's tossed in jail for a murder she didn't commit. And if things don't seem complicated enough, the impossibly handsome sheriff in charge of her arrest, has danger written all over him and a sexy swagger to die for. Jessica knows she needs to get home. But when Sheriff Wades' enticing touch, sets her passions on fire, she begins to wonder if fate has other plans for her. And soon she must choose between the life she longs for in the future and the greatest love she's ever known.

CW: Well does that leave you hot under the collar and wanting to read on? The book is, "Taken by the Cowboy" by author Julianne MacLean. And it's a romance novel -- pure and simple. Not the kind of literature you might be used to hearing on CBC radio or the kind of book you're used to hearing celebrated by literary types at all. Which is why the Toronto Public Library garnered so much attention by seeking out an author of romances to be its writer-in-residence earlier this year. We asked Denise Drapkin, North York Library Services Manager, why they would choose a romance writer?

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: I absolutely don't think that romance writing gets the respect that it deserves. It's undervalued. It's underestimated. It's judged negatively by everybody who doesn't read it. And so what we wanted to do was we wanted to embrace it and publicize it because one should never be judged negatively for whatever one reads or writes. It's a huge industry often overlooked by critics and reviewers. It's a genre where many writers actually get their start, often under pseudonyms, and it's a great way for people to pay it forward and to help encourage would-be writers and that's what Toronto Public Library wants to do. What I find is if you look at romance fiction like in general over the years, you'll see that things have changed and things that are acceptable today might not have been acceptable before. There's possibly a lot fewer doctor-nurse romances now and a lot fewer, sort of management or top dog in a company and their admin assistant. The power structure has changed. Women are often very strong. There are fantasy romances. There's a couple of cowboy romances, there's hockey romances, for example, "Undone By You," is an LGBTQ hockey-romance. Dante Moretti has just landed his dream job, GM of the Chicago Rebels and screw the haters who think there should be an asterisk next to his name because he's the first out managing executive in pro hockey. He's earned the right to be here and nothing will topple him off that perch, especially not an incredibly inconvenient attraction to his star defencemen, Cade "Alamo" Burnett. Cade has always been careful to keep his own desires on the down low,. but his hot Italian boss proves to be a temptation he can't resist. Sure, they both have so much to lose, but no one will ever know. It's very important to remember that we're allowed to read for pleasure and that recreational reading is something that should be encouraged and should not be dismissed or undervalued. I almost call it mental floss. You know, it's a way of sort of relaxing, clearing out the brain and being able to re-enter the world, you know with a more relaxed and easy brain, after you've read one of these. There's no judgment over here.

CW: Well there may be no judgment in Denise Drabkin's North York Library but there's plenty to be found elsewhere.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Any romance novel that I've ever looked at has been an excruciating ordeal. They're excruciating reading experiences because they're obviously so hastily confected and the writers are clearly talentless, when it comes to prose sentences, when it comes to the sophistication of psychology, the sophistication of emotions, when it comes to having something original and dynamic and intelligent to say about the plight of our species. For anyone who would say, well there are good romance novels and bad romance novels, I'd say please send the good ones my way. I'd be happy to look at them. I doubt you'll be able to do it.

CW: That's writer and memoirist William Giraldi from Boston, who is clearly not a devotee of the romance genre.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: For me, it doesn't make much sense to spend much time impugning these books as writing because I don't think they were meant to be considered as actual writing, the same way that Twinkie wasn't meant to be considered as actual food. So then the question becomes, why are these books so popular? It's simply that these romance novels provide precisely what empty entertainment has always provided, distraction and escape. And so then you've got to ask from what do millions of these readers need escape? I would say from their humdrum domesticity and their colourless work lives, maybe from the oppressive disappointment in their spouses and their family lives. When you consider how many of these novels are bought and read, it's really a kind of obsession and this obsession, like all obsessions, I think is born of a borderline despair.

CW: Well after that rather harsh assessment by author William Giraldi, Anna Maria Tremonti spoke with two other writers who came to the romance genres defense. Eloisa James is a New York Times bestselling romance author. Her books have been translated into 28 languages and there are more than six million copies of her work out there in the world. When she's not writing romance, she can be found at Fordham University where she's a tenured professor of English Lit and where she is known by her real name, Mary Bly. Mary Bly was in New York City. And Sarah MacLean is a New York Times best seller of 12 historical romance novels. Her most recent is Wicked and the Wallflower. She's also a columnist with The Washington Post, where she writes about romance novels and their place in today's gender politics and culture. Sarah MacLean was in California. From May of this year, here is Anna Maria Tremonti speaking with Mary Bly and Sarah MacLean.

AMT: Sarah let's start with you. What were you thinking as you listened to that critique, Twinkie of books.

SARAH MACLEAN: Well to be honest, I was thinking of course, of course this man from Boston, who surely hasn't read a full romance novel, I like that he used the term "looked at," has judged these books harshly. I mean his description of readers was insulting to us, to them. And I think that what's really interesting is it was such a gendered assessment of the genre. There was so much kind of latent, maybe not-so latent misogyny, in the description of the women who read these books, mostly women, though some men and of the things that they can get from these books, the reason why they come into these books, the reason why we write them.

AMT: Mary Bly what do you think?

MB: I would agree with that. I think the misogyny revealed in the fact he talked about domesticity and disappointment with the husband, as if those were the two things that make, sort of the define women's world, says a lot about him and very little about the romance genre.

AMT: So and we are talking about romance as genre fiction, not romantic literature. How are the two different, Mary?

MB: Genre fiction is very different from literature, I mean literature is just a genre and genre fiction is a genre. But when we think of genre fiction, we're really thinking of categories, say the mystery or the romance and those do have different rules around them. They tend to be focused around an internal, sort of a myth or a desire for, for example, a thoughtful, intelligent relationship or in the case of mystery, perfect justice. Right. It will always end with the criminal act being solved, otherwise it doesn't fit within its genre or it fits very uneasily. Science fiction is, you know, the creation of a whole different world, so it's a longing for that sort of originality. I think that people like this William Giraldi, when he's talking about writing and the actual, he said, "I believe that romance writers don't even know, that's not even actual writing," number one, I would say that romance is always judged by the worst of its written, the worst thing written whereas literature is judged by the best. So that's unfortunate, but the second thing is that he, like so many, is really expressing his feelings about women and about a genre that is written by women for women and he's expressing, I'd say far more than latent dislike.

AMT: And I want to talk about that, especially in the era of MeToo, but let's just, a little more about romance genre, when did it begin, it's not really that old, is it Sarah?

SM: Well, we stand on the shoulders of people like Austen and Bronte, for sure, but no, when we talk about romance novels as we think about them in the world, we're really talking about a genre that was birthed in 1972, with a book called, "The Flame and the Flower," by Kathleen Woodiwiss. And that was, at its time, the first time really, ever that anyone had seen an adventure novel with a woman at the centre of it. And it's centered, a character named Heather, who was the main character of the story, it was about her life and her troubles and her challenges and it sees her on multiple continents and it sees her falling in love and it sees her triumphing in a way that we had really never seen an adventure novel centre a woman and centre a woman's importance in the world. That book sold two million copies in the first year, which in 1972 was a banana's amount of copies and it birthed a genre that now is nearly 50 years old and millions of books and hundreds of millions of readers strong.

AMT: This is the disconnect, right, they sell really well and yet there is this criticism that comes from certain areas. Mary Bly, you chose to keep your identity hidden as a writer of this kind of fiction for years, why?

MB: Well I was an assistant professor, so I'm a Shakespeare professor at Fordham University, which happens to be a Jesuit university. So I was very sure and this doesn't actually have quite so much to do with the genre, as it was the way academia is structured in the US, but you really can't hold down two full-time jobs. So that's the general feeling when you're an assistant, you know, it's publish or perish. So I kept it secret, but once I got tenure and I'd hit the New York Times also at that point, I started feeling as if I was, like as if it looked as if I was embarrassed of my readers, as if I was embarrassed of my own books, if I was humiliated by myself in some sense and I was thereby denigrating my readers. So at that point I came out. As it turned out my university has embraced this completely, which makes sense because now they have a writer that they can, you know, show to the students as someone who actually makes money and unlike many poets, is solvent at the end of the day.

AMT: Well and you come from literary royalty. Your father is the poet and essayist, Robert Bly. Your mother, Carole Bly, celebrated writer of short stories and essays. So you've never, you haven't had that judgment growing up.

MB: I have.

AMT: Oh, you have.

MB: My mother used to call my books, "that sex stuff." She never read one. One of the last things she said to me was I was going to write a real book someday. So I have a clear sense of where Giraldi's coming from, I understand that disdain, I think Sarah would agree that we've faced it often because we both are from academic backgrounds and live in New York City. What I've had to realize is that to succumb to that kind of disdain is to really succumb to a dislike of a woman reader because the women who read my books, many of them have, most of them have gone to college, but they read widely, they read everything. Women are the main reader, buyers of books in the United States, so they may read a romance today and they're reading literature tomorrow. This question of obsession that he talks about is not, I mean there is a percent of readers who only read romance, but the majority of them read very, very widely. They are readers, above all.

AMT: So Sarah talk to us a little bit about because you've made it really clear that you have a lot of feminist cred, you too are of you know, an Ivy League background, how do you square that that kind of criticism that belittles the women and doesn't recognize feminism in these books?.

SM: Well first I would say that it's unlikely that people who come at me or come across with this criticism, have actually sat down and read a collection of romance novels. I think that as Mary said, there is no question that romance is often judged on its worst, but there are thousands and hundreds of thousands of romance novels that tell the story of a woman in the world triumphing. And I think that what's really interesting is that in almost all other literature, genre or otherwise, women and marginalized people are put on the page to suffer and die and be martyred and be vehicles by which someone else is heroic. And in romance, these people are put on the page, women, marginalized people, they're put on the page to triumph and to win and to have hope and passion and partnership and yes, love. And there's nothing, there's nothing sad or pathetic about wanting happiness and a happily ever after. And when we centre these kinds of fantasies and these kinds of ideas, they're incredibly powerful because when all women have seen for millennia in literature and in storytelling is, women as pain or women in pain, seeing us in triumph is a really compelling, powerful concept.

AMT: And have you had to change or do you see change since the MeToo movement?

SM: I don't think that many of us have changed much, since the MeToo the movement. Since the very beginning, consent has been on the page for romance novelists. And I think that's the remarkable thing about these books is women have had to deal with assault and had to deal with pain and had to deal with misogyny and hate for so long that of course, a genre written largely by women, largely for women, largely about women is about this idea of consent and centres this idea of women having agency over their own body, over their own partnership, over their own sexual identity and sexual experiences. So for me, I think all it's done is made me lean in, be a little more overt, but it's certainly for the genre, there's nothing new about putting consent on the page.

AMT: I have another clip I'd like you guys to hear. Our producer in Halifax, Mary-Catherine McIntosh, met with a voracious reader of romance fiction. She is not at all bothered by what people think of her choice of books and listen to what we've got of her talking about this.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: My name is Lynne Colter and I love reading romance. I was out shopping at a yard sale and they had a box of books and I started picking through them and the woman says, "Well, you know, you can have the whole box for whatever." I said sure, handed her the money and walked away. Well the box was entirely full of romances. And I was pregnant and I had a lot of stress going on and I needed escapism and I just devoured them. And that was, that started my love affair with Harlequin and I've not stopped since. And I read a lot. I read at least 300 books a year. There's just lots and lots of good books to be read. I will read anything from sweet romance with the bedroom door closed, to hardcore erotica. Are you OK? A deep voice asked, as he anchored her body to his. She took one look into the most gorgeous pair of blue eyes she had ever seen and knew in an instant that she was not okay. In fact, she might never be okay again. Before she even realized what was happening he fished her out again and threw her over his shoulders. The movement forced the water from her lungs, as he carried her to the shore. He laid her out on the ground and tilted her head back, a second later his mouth was on hers. Bursts of warm air filled her lungs, but she couldn't think about that right now. No, right now all she could think about was how hot his lips felt, how his mouth tasted like beer and cinnamon and everything nice. Unable to stop herself, she moaned, her nipples tightening as she wrapped her hands around his head. I'm going to have to read that whole book.

VOICE 2: Does it just suck you in?

VOICE 1: It does. It really does. When I'm reading on my lunch hour, I often have to set a timer, so that I know to go back to work. I've worked here for 18 years and when I started, you didn't have e-book readers. I've always had a print book with me and you know, you look at the cover, you know what Lynne's reading. I read mostly e-books now, just mainly for the convenience that you never have to worry about finishing the book when you've got it in your purse. But I've never had any concern about walking around with a romance book in my hands.

VOICE 2: Never?

VOICE 1: Never. It's nobody's business what you're reading, first of all and their escapism. With a romance novel, you know you're going to have a happy ever after. Am I'm reading to relax and unwind and to be pleasured. So why do you, why is there expectation that a woman reading a romance is expecting that to happen in her real life? If I was reading a historical novel, nobody would withhold that against me. So there's a romance element in the story, what difference does it make?

AMT: Okay Lynne Colter, 300 books a year and she says right up front, it's escapism and pleasure and why would she be judged, when you're not judging the readers of other books about wanting to escape into the world of whatever book they have. What do you think Sarah MacLean?

SM: First of all, I love Lynne and I want her to come be my friend and so we can talk about romance novels all the time. She's absolutely right and Mr. Giraldi points it out that and he said it was such disdain, that these books are about pleasure and they're about entertainment, and my question I wish he were here because I would ask him what's so wrong about that. Why should we not enjoy the things we read? Why should we judge them for being pleasurable, for being able to sit down and read a book in six hours, simply because you can't put it down. That's a delicious experience and anyone who's ever read a novel that way, knows that it's deeply rewarding and Lynne surely knows that. I would also say that Lynne is, there is nothing different about Lynne than there is about many, many, many other romance readers. Most romance readers read far more than other readers, they read on average 10 to 12 books a month. Lynne is one of the many, who reads almost a book a day and I think this is a powerful experience and I also think that Lynne's comment about feeling as though the books weren't setting high expectations for her or that she's concerned about people believing that these books were setting unrealistic expectations. That's a word, a phrase we hear a lot in romance, is something that I hear a lot from readers and it always a little bit disappoints me because what it says to me is that, in some way partnership, happiness, love, an experience with a partner who makes you feel seen and feel heard and also gives you immense pleasure, should be unrealistic in some way.

AMT: OK so let's let Mary, before we run out of time, that's a good point, Mary Bly you want to pick up on that? We're almost out of time.

MB: OK. I would say that it's not unrealistic what is described as Sarah is saying, but I would also say that these books, like a Shakespeare play right, they are teaching as you read. So you're reading that many, you are actually learning and what you're learning is that you have the right to this, that every woman has the right to someone who's thoughtful and non-abusive and respectful. And these books teach that. They're not just escape, they also teach.

AMT: We have to leave it there. Thank you both for your thoughts on all of this.

MB: Thank you.

SM: Thank you.

MB: Thank you for having us.

SM: Thank you for having us.

CW: Anna Maria Tremonti spoke with Sarah MacLean and Mary Bly in May. Mary Bly is a professor of English literature at Fordham University who writes romance novels under the pseudonym, Eloisa James. She was in New York City. Sarah MacLean is a bestselling author of romance novels and a columnist with The Washington Post. She was in California. And the Toronto Public Library did find its writer-in-residence, Stefanie London now hold that position. She is a USA Today bestselling author of contemporary romances and romantic comedies. That's our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for q. John Krasinski is on the show, the actor from The Office has directed a new film called A Quiet Place -- with most of the dialogue taking place in sign language. Well after our romance novel discussion, let's end things off with some music from Sheryl Crow who sings about reading romance novels and dreaming of yesterday and her song, Home. I'm Connie Walker. Thanks for listening to the summer edition of The Current.

[Music: Sheryl Crow “Home”]

Friday August 31, 2018 Full Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode