.
| Hearsay: |
Alex Good has gone and done something rather rash in the latest issue of CNQ (which is just about the best Canadian books publication out there). He’s written an essay analyzing the legacy of the Giller Prize, Canada’s glitziest award for fiction, and I think it’s safe to say he’s come to a few negative conclusions.
… four of the five books shortlisted had substantial historical components, with the one exception, Late Nights on Air, set in the mid-1970s (a time within living memory, though “we can see the sepia tones already starting to colour the northern landscape”). The acknowledgments in all five doubled as bibliographies. Research was experiencing its own real return. The old adage that books are written out of other books has never been so clearly demonstrated, albeit the books in question were not inspiring works of fiction but rather stuff like Tapestry of War, Beneath These Red Cliffs: An Ethnohistory of the Utah Paiutes, Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France 1870 – 1914, Report of the Fifth Thule Expedition, 1921 – 1924, and Ras Mala, Hindoo Annals of the Province of Goozerat in Western India. I’m not making any of this up.
Other Giller trends also returned stronger than ever in 2007. The Old Guard duly made the list in the presence of Michael Ondaatje and M. G. Vassanji (both previous Giller winners). The winning book was published by McClelland & Stewart (who had two nominees), giving M&S and Doubleday 11 out of the last 15 prizes. Three of the five nominated authors live in Toronto, with Elizabeth Hay and Daniel Poliquin hailing from Ottawa. Donald Winkler, Poliquin’s translator, lives in Montreal.
There is no need of a conspiracy to arrive at results like these. The Gillers have, in a mere fourteen years, become an institution so incestuous and sclerotic they have their own systemic biases. Of course none of this would matter if the best works of Canadian fiction were being recognized. But they are not. And so one may well question whether the prize is serving any valid purpose at all – indeed, whether it is perhaps now doing more harm than good.
Say what you mean, man! Quit beating around the bush! All this innuendo with no substance is maddening!!
January 2006
December
2005
November
2005
October
2005
September
2005
August
2005
July
2005
June
2005
May
2005
April
2005
March
2005
February
2005
January
2005
December
2004
November
2004
October
2004
September
2004
August
2004
July
2004
June
2004
May
2004
April
2004
March
2004
February
2004
January
2004
December
2003
November
2003
October
2003
September
2003
August
2003
Bookninja © Copyright
The opinions expressed on this site are those of individual participants
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the site owners,
organizers, or other participants.
[powered by WordPress.]
June 12th, 2008 at 9:01 am
“The Gillers have, in a mere fourteen years, become an institution so incestuous and sclerotic they have their own systemic biases. Of course none of this would matter if the best works of Canadian fiction were being recognized. But they are not.”
Amen. But isn’t that Can Lit? All pats on the back? All worshiping of the past and fear of new and change (authors and stories)? Come on Canada, there’s more to this country than WW II (or any war from the past) and ye olde Maritime midwives. I’m sure this year’s judges Atwood, Toibin, and Bob Rae (???) will come up with a surprisingly fresh shortlist (sarcasm intended). Maybe Toibin. Maybe.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Well, I might have put The Birth House on the list of books that should have been nominated, but otherwise, yeah, sure.
So, which books would you all nominate?
June 12th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Some people might be interested in The Economy of Prestige Prizes, Awards, and the Circulation of Cultural Value by James English. Of a decidedly different register than the Good piece but some people like that sort of thing.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:35 am
yes, we all hate the Gillers. So let’s just ignore the prize and go our own way. Should writers be allowed on the juries? If not, our opinions don’t matter.
I would nominate several people I know personally, some better than others: David Gilmour, Robert Hough, John McFetridge. I’d nominate French writers, if that’s allowed: Yves Beauchemin, Giles Courtemanche, Marie Hélène Poitras. I’d nominate Nancy Huston and Douglas Coupland.
of course this is just from my reading, which excludes pretty much anything that was actually nominated. Only two of the books have any historical context. Huston’s does progress backwards in time, but it’s hardly a sentimental romance. Most of them are contemporary stories, and all of them are very strong narratives.
As I’ve been reviewing books for several years now, and make a point of reading Canadian if I can, I have to say that the Gillers actually do represent the kind of thing that most gets published. I’m tempted to say, however, that this is not peculiar to Canada – this is just typical of mediocre, middle-brow “serious” novels everywhere.
Take up John’s challenge. Don’t just complain, make your own nominations.
m
June 12th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
That I-word gets flung around a lot. Frankly I have trouble with the idea of a “poisoned pool of peers” as Good puts it. I just don’t buy it. I prefer to think in terms of a shared aesthetic and believe in the integrity of the peer jury process.