Ricci wins GG

19 comments on “Ricci wins GG”

1. Michael Lista says:
   November 18th, 2008 at 11:53 am

   A judge awards a book she helped write. Incredible. From the sublime to the Mugabeesque.

2. Carleton says:
   November 18th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

   This is utterly ridiculous. Whatever ‘prestige’ that was associated with the poetry GG is gone. I’m just shocked.

3. LM says:
   November 18th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

   Holy moly! What a way to taint the win. I’m doubly surprised, because the book wasn’t that good. It felt like creative writing class excerpts.

4. kevin says:
   November 18th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

   Wasn’t Christian Bok kicked off the GG poetry jury a few years ago because of his relationship with Darren Wershler Henry the year that Apostrophe was published?

5. SM says:
   November 18th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

   My arms are still sore from the last time everyone was up in arms about this kind of stuff.

   Here’s a congratulations to Scheier on his good fortune.

   And a challenge to publishers: the appearance of bias, whether or not there is actual bias, makes the whole thing stink. Publishers (who are the ones out of pocket here (well, the taxpayers too, I guess)) should let their displeasure (if they have any) be known.

6. Jakub says:
   November 18th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

   The first poem in Scheier’s book is a translation of a Rilke? poem co-authored by Scheier and Brandt, and Pier Giorgio Di Cicco provides one of the blurbs on the back of the book. This is not enough for me to assume nepotism has taken place, though it does leave a bad taste in my mouth. Are there any other links between the jury and Scheier? Furthermore, is anyone a fan of the book? After reading the first few poems and thumbing through the rest of More to Keep Us Warm, it really didn’t strike me as original or well written. When it was nominated for the GG, I picked it up again and my opinion remained the same.

7. NAME WITHHELD says:
   November 18th, 2008 at 3:14 pm

   I like Jacob Scheier, and I feel sorry him. He didn’t deserve to win this award, and he surely doesn’t deserve the brunt of the bitterness and revulsion with which his book’s winning will be met. I also feel sorry for him because what should be a happy experience for any writer will, for him, always be tainted with this scandal of literary inbreeding. This is only Scheier’s first collection of poems, and it has its moments, but it is a weak book overall, and it should not have won the GG. No reasonable, knowledgeable and impartial juror would think it the best of the shortlist, let alone the best book published nationwide of the entire year. This is a farce.

   Di Brandt and Giorgio DiCicco (I’m guessing they’re responsible) should be ashamed of themselves. Rather than giving an award to a deserving book, which is what they were charged with doing, they have instead done a profitable favour for someone they happen to like. That is not what this jury is all about. I doubt either DiCicco or Brandt truly believe it’s the best book; they’re both experienced enough to know better. Surely, Brandt has committed the biggest crime here… by sitting on a jury that awarded a prize to a book that she, at least in part, actually collaborated on. This is absolutely appalling.

   And it has to said, the real victim here is A.F. Moritz, whose superior work has once again been passed over. I fear Moritz may be the Peter O’Toole of Canadian poetry.

8. eab says:
   November 19th, 2008 at 5:05 pm

   Conflict of interest is one of the first red flags of ethics.
   It may be that even to win is not a sign of success in any real
   sense. The honorable thing then would be to respectfully
   turn down the prize. But money talks, if not in self-referencing
   metaphors.

9. Sam says:
   November 19th, 2008 at 9:56 pm

   Before everyone raises their pitchforks, it should be said that George and Al have been good friends since the 70’s, so I don’t imagine George liking his job as judge all that much this year. Does anyone actually know the voting process? Is it one vote per judge or preferential voting where each judge votes on top three with points awarded according to the ranking and then the final total tallied? Or some other voting system perhaps? I’m more curious about the voting procedure than conspiracy theory myself.

10. Ian LeTourneau says:
    November 20th, 2008 at 12:17 am

    I don’t think anyone is suggesting a conspiracy theory. the facts speak for themselves. juror co-wrote poem of winner.
    juror thanked in acknowledgments by winner. appearance of conflict of interest.
    therefore legitimate questions (or as you say pitchforks) are raised.

11. name withheld says:
    November 20th, 2008 at 11:04 am

    Thanking a juror in your acknowledgment page and even getting a blurb from them does not necessarily mean there were favours done here. But, I must say, I recall a few years ago Ms. Di Brandt sent out an email requesting money and help on behalf of Jacob Scheier so that he could buy prescription drugs he needed. She is personally involved in his life and also collaborated on his writing. Did she think no one would notice this? This whole thing really bothers me because Jacob’s poetry is so bad, it’s embarrassing–and as a taxpayer, my money is going to waste.

12. Joel G says:
    November 20th, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    With all due respect to Sam, I don’t think the voting process is relevant when there is a blatant conflict of interest. Either Brandt should have stepped down, or the book disqualified for her connection to it. There is no disrespect directed Scheier’s way by saying so. As others have noticed, it ain’t his fault.

    But the situation speaks to the difficulties inherent to the micro-sized pool of Can poetry, and not just because of Scheier’s proximity to the jury. As Sam rightly points out, Di Cicco may have felt damned no matter what he did or didn’t do. His closeness to Moritz is more of a commonplace occurrence when poets judge poets, however, and I doubt anyone would have blinked if Al had won.

    The pool of readers for the poetry GG is too damn small to avoid problems like these. A national poetry award provided by the public purse may have to ’suffer’ through the democratization of its jury. Could be more good to come of it than bad, as per a comment on Wells’ blog.

13. Ian LeTourneau says:
    November 20th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    name withheld says, “I must say, I recall a few years ago Ms. Di Brandt sent out an email requesting money and help on behalf of Jacob Scheier so that he could buy prescription drugs he needed.”

    this scenario is getting worse and worse… I think all those alarmed by this should follow Zach Well’s advice (see link above): write Robert Sirman, the head of the CC, and let him know what you think

14. a reader says:
    November 20th, 2008 at 6:18 pm

    That sounds like private information that maybe shouldn’t have been posted here. If Brandt did that, I’m sure it wasn’t meant to forwarded to EVERYONE.

15. [Name withheld at requset of author] says:
    November 20th, 2008 at 6:28 pm

    Please withhold my name.

    I was a juror for the GG’s in another category, and I believe the procedure that was used then still holds. Jurors simply discuss and arrive at a consensus. No juror has more say than any other.

16. [Name withheld at requset of author] says:
    November 20th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

    Again, please withold name.

    It is very hard to avoid bias when the pool is so small and we are such a community. I think the issue arises because so many people feel that more deserving books were overlooked.

17. Susan MacRae says:
    November 26th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

    Complaining about conflict of interest in the Canadian poetry world is
    like going to Deliverance country and complaining about inbreeding –
    you’re not going to stop it. Much like inbreeding goldfish with three eyes.

18. sms says:
    November 28th, 2008 at 4:43 pm

    CanLit t.m. (poetry division) should take a big chill… it’s a wee country, with a wee number of wordfolk chattering, cheering and chiding one another… anyone who honestly believes that there is any meaning in a GG, or a whatever, is quite frankly, sipping with the fairies (absinthe maybe?)… check out GG winners circa 1973 at your local 2nd (or 10th) hand book store and see if the jury was right or not… plus ca change (sorry for lack of cidilla!)

    oh, here’s a novel (or poetic) idea… what about having the reading public i.e., not poets, judge…. eeeeekkk!

19. Remaining Anonymous says:
    December 3rd, 2008 at 7:57 pm

    INTERESTINGLY MELANIE RUTLEDGE IS STEPPING DOWN FROM HER POST ON DECEMBER 19. THIS COULD BE WHY SHE’S NOT INTERESTED IN ANY DISCUSSION OF A SCANDAL ON HER WATCH. SHE’S QUIT HER JOB BUT SHE’S STILL GOING TO WORK.

Discuss