.
| Hearsay: |
A day after the announcement of the Governor General Awards, people are buzzing, more in person than print, about apparent conflicts-of-interest on the part of the poetry jury. I feel sorry for winner Jacob Scheier who’s had his win tainted with this. I don’t think his book was the best on the list, but that’s a matter of taste. No matter how good it was, it will never be able to live down the fact that at least two of the three jurors were deeply connected to his book, including one blurbing the back cover and another COLLABORATING on one of the poems within. Both are thanked acknowledgements. It’s not Scheier’s fault that this happened, but it is a serious signal that something is deeply wrong with the process that this could happen. Is there no vetting of jurors? Is there no oversight of the process? Are we relying solely on the jurors to police themselves in situations like this? I remember Andre Alexis stepping off a jury recently because his then partner Catherine Bush was up for consideration. I also remember Christian Bok leaving a jury for similar reasons (because his then partner was …. har har). I can’t imagine what the thinking was behind this. It also makes me feel for Al Moritz, whose book was by far and away the best of the list and would have easily walked away with the award had an impartial jury been in place. Anyway, Zach is advocating shaming those involved with letters and open letters to the head of the CC and is providing addresses. I worry about this strategy because I feel that despite the fucked-up situation, everyone was probably very well-meaning. It was just a stupid move that has cost some people some dignity and has cost the award itself any real legitimacy.
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.]
November 19th, 2008 at 10:58 am
By “shaming,” I mean more what’s going on here than dragging them out into the street and pelting them with rotten vegetables. No, it’s not JS’s fault. But he’s still, to the best of my knowledge, accepting the money. He has a choice. And the good intentions of di Cicco and Brandt are absolutely beside the point. We don’t let politicians off for good intentions when they award contracts to croneys. They have enriched their protege at the expense of taxpayers and as you say they’ve stripped this award of whatever (questionable) legitimacy it possessed. Had they not been on the jury, Scheier would probably never have been shortlisted, much less won. His win isn’t tainted by nepotism, it’s the direct result of it. They owe everyone, including Jacob Scheier, a public apology.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Hey Zach. Get off your, cross we need the wood.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Just to be a word nerd, this has been called “nepotism” a few times on these boards and it’s not.
“Cronyism” would do fine.
Not Scheier’s fault at all, but Brandt should be ashamed of herself. If it’s public money even the appearance of conflict of interest is a problem.
That said, the old question rears its head: Where do you go to find jurors who aren’t compromised in some way?
November 19th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I know you don’t like Zach, Kevin, but he’s right. Plus I’ve always thought him more a Pilate-type than Christ figure….
November 19th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Ah, maybe you’re right George.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Alex asks: “That said, the old question rears its head: Where do you go to find jurors who aren’t compromised in some way?”
Maybe outside our borders. I don’t know, but we should be looking.
Another thing: Di Brandt should be blacklisted from serving as a juror for literary awards.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Yep, “cronyism” is the word. I don’t know what the solution can be in such a small country. In the old days they would fly in
more jurors from the regions to avoid the Upper and Lower Canada Clusterfuck problem.
November 19th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
What about the cronyism for the last Griffin award/shortlist, too?
People seem to be less willing to take on a few senior, critically acclaimed, semi-worshipped poets than they are to jump on a newbie like Schier, but it was still absolutely blatant cronyism.
Because that award is more privatized (maybe with some funding?) does that make it okay? The GG should, certainly, be more publicly accountable, but I hardly remember a complaint when the Old Boys were slapping each other on the backs…
November 19th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I dunno where you hang out, Lester, but I heard grumbles aplenty. But the Griffin _is_ a private prize, so it’s up to the Griffin to set their house in order, if that’s what they want. Given their track record of appointing past winners as jurors, it would seem that’s not what they want. They’d rather give awards in consecutive years to a profoundly mediocre poet like Robin Blaser. So be it. The Giller has a similarly incestuous history. But they pay for their rich gala… But the GGs are funded by you, me and Joe the Plumber, so it really should be held to a higher standard of accountability. There should be transcripts of jury deliberations available. Imagine this scenario:
Di Brandt: I’d like to nominate Jacob Scheier.
Juror X: Didn’t you help him write it?
Di Brandt: Can we erase that last bit?
November 19th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Oh and re: nepotism. I think we can look at di Cicco and Brandt as Scheier’s poetic uncle and aunt.
November 19th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
> But he’s still, to the best of my knowledge, accepting the money. He has a choice.
So you’re saying that in this situation, it behooves Scheier to announce, “My book was clearly inferior and undeserving of this win, so I have no choice but to return this prize”?
Or, perhaps, “Although the jurors may have acted in good faith, I cannot allow even the appearance of conflict here, and therefore I must return this prize”?
It’s a mess, clearly, but putting the onus on the author to remedy it seems a bit much.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Ain’t no one else can do it at this point.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:00 am
I was excited about the Griffin’s rule of having international judges assess Canadian books, thought it would promote some objectivity. But apparently and evidently, the international judges just let the Canadian judge pick the Canadian winner–so often their buddy, publisher, mentor, whatever…
This seems to go against modern values, I guess, but I would like to see more consistency in the judging. How about if the GGs appointed one judge for poetry, maybe an English prof who knows poetry but may not necessarily be drunking pals with half the poets in Canada, for a 4 year renewable term? This way, the person is under some scrutiny in knowing they’ll be back the next year — not “pick you best friend and run.” Find someone who appreciates and understands a wide variety of genres. This may sound risky, but I think a system like this would bring credibility back. Maybe even have three profs for limited terms…
November 20th, 2008 at 3:49 am
This happens all the time, and no one ever seems to care. I kept waiting to hear someone care when Vincent Lam won the Giller with a book thanking Michael Winter, a judge, in the acknowledgements. Or when a jury containing Winter gave the Journey Prize to a member of his writing group. But no one said anything. I’m not picking on Winter here– he’s just one of many. I simply point out that there are individuals for whom this is a recurring proposition. I’m glad this time some people somewhere care. There’s no way to legislate against cronyism. The only way to stop it is for there to be outrage, and for those involved to be so thoroughly shamed that in future they’re afraid to do it. What really bugs me about these situations is that the jurors don’t address the perceived conflict. They don’t say “I know I’m in the acknowledgements, and I stepped out of the room when this book was being discussed” or “I didn’t step out because (insert reason here).” They simply act as though it’s nothing, which to me is as wrong as the cronyism.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:02 am
There’s always going to be issues with the degrees of separation, especially in Canada. And I think there is a difference between giving the nod to ’someone you know’ because you think their work is excellent and ‘one of your best friends’ because you really think s/he is a nice person and it would be good if they had the money. At a certain level, I think it’s fine if a juror nominates a friend’s book, so long as the book would have conceivably been selected by someone else. Why should a friend of Don McKay, for example, recuse himself if he truly believes McKay’s book is the best of the crop? If he didn’t nominate the book, chances are a different juror else would. These things are bound to happen, and there’s not really any way to get around them. I think what makes this particular case so outstanding is not that a juror was thanked in the acknowledgements. That’s petty stuff. The issue here is that a book (that was clearly not the best on the list) received an award because two out of three jurors both had a close relationship with the book itself, not just with the author. One wrote a blurb for the book, and the other collaborated on some of the text. Even the blurb, if you’re feeling generous, can be written off as coincidence, but the collaboration is a clear conflict, and that should have disqualified the juror. The whole thing stinks.
I dislike the suggestion of having the some prof choose a winner for four consecutive years for two reasons. First, it would result in dynasties of taste; every poet who writes in a certain style could just abandon hope for four years until a new award czar is ushered into power. Second, a majority of profs, especially those who are not poets themselves, are woefully poorly read in contemporary poetry. Knowing everything there is to know about Robert Herrick, Arthur Rimbuad or Charlotte Bronte does not necessarily qualify someone to judge the poetry of Gil Adamson, David O’Meara, or Elizabeth Bachinsky.
The best solution to this problem is more oversight. The Council must be more active in policing its conflict of interest rules. When you sit on a grant jury, you have to fill out conflict on interest forms every time there might be a perceived conflict, awards juries should do the same.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:12 am
This kind of thing is rampant… rampant, I say.
I was riding on a taxpayer supported train a week or so ago and pulled out the taxpayer supported train magazine and found there an article basically advertising the poetry and opinions of one of the taxpayer supported train company’s employees! Not only does this dude get his salary from us, but now his poetry gets free advertising in a magazine we’re forced to read during the trip. What is this, Russia?
Who made the decision to write that particular article. Where are the transcripts from the editorial meeting?
Also, where were the free pretzels? Even WestJet has free pretzels.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I’m finding the “it’s impossible to find unbiased jurors in Canada” argument pretty disingenuous. Yeah, a lot of folks in the literary community may have met, talked. Read each other. That’s different from co-writing a poem and blurbing the book.
I just don’t understand how, if you’re that juror, you don’t see this coming and step down. I have a good friend, a playwright, who’s done it. And his career’s just fine — clearly nothing bad happens if you make a choice with integrity.
The Canadian literary world doesn’t need this kind of press.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Seems to me there’s compromised, and then there’s compromised. This is beyond the pale.
But….
“The Canadian literary world doesn’t need this kind of press.”
What kind of press? There ain’t no press. We’re talking about poetry. The lynch mob on this one will be able to meet at the back corner table of a Tim Horton’s in Prince George, there to decide (with poetic precision) on a more apt descriptor than “mob.”
November 20th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
“What kind of press? There ain’t no press. We’re talking about poetry.”
You might be right, but it’s only been a couple of days. And already our conversation here has made it to the National Post… [see link above]
In the same year our re-elected PM talks about the ‘glitzy galas for writers’… I would much prefer our community plays on the level and proves to the general public that we’re not as self-serving as our so-called leader says.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
If I was an enterprising journalist or blogger, I would think about contacting the jurors, especially the third one, to see if I could get them to talk about and even defend the decision-making process. If that doesn’t work, then try the angry letter approach.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I’m fairly certain if you started working back in time and awards in this country you would find all sorts of shocking links, former lovers, editors, room mates…once having been in the same workshop, and so on.
Those connections seem fine if everyone is in agreement that the book should win…the problem only seems to be when a few people think it’s the wrong win.
I agree it seems a surprising choice, and I don’t know the book or poet involved, but as far as moral outrage goes, I always wonder who cast the first stone? And why.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Just for the record: someone blurbing a book is not necessarily close to it. Often the blurber’s contacted by a cold-calling publisher or author whom she’s never met. Her quotes will end up mingled on the dust jacket with quotes from reviewers, who are also supposed to be impartial (though often aren’t).
In this case, admittedly, maybe the blurbing-judge was more than an arms-length blurber.
As for an actual collaborator… that’s another kettle of monkeys.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
You’re all missing the point. It may or may not be shady in actual practice. Perhaps this in indeed the best book of poetry published this year. But the fact that the jurors aren’t addressing the issue is a HUGE problem. The main problem. Because in not addressing it, they make it seem like it’s not an issue, and it clearly is. If this is their choice they need to tell us why it isn’t cronyism, or at least try. They need to assure us that when the discussion was being had it their ethics were the right ones, and that they weren’t doing what it looks to many like they’re doing. JH is right– if you can’t deal with being a juror with integrity, or at least the appearance of integrity, then step down. Because this doesn’t look bad on acob Scheier, it looks bad on all three jurors, the two with the conflict and the third who isn’t screaming bloody murder. I see what you’re saying, ZW, but asking a poet to turn down 25K is a tall order. You’re also asking him to say his book isn’t the best book of the year, which he must absolutely believe if he is to go on justify his being a writer. For him to refuse the prize, even if he thinks it’s tainted, is for him to refute his own work, which in my view would make him a lesser write in my eyes. I bet this controversy has robbed him of any good feelings he’ll have about winning this prize, and I feel badly for him for that. Shame on the jurors for putting him in this situation by not owning up to their responsibility to be open and forthcoming. Shame on them for thinking no one would notice.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
It is not the best book of the year and by admitting so does not mean he cannot ‘justify his being a writer’.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Quill has comments from Di Brandt up. Apparently you’re all a bunch of jealous Torontonian neodadaists. I’m glad that has been put to rest!
November 21st, 2008 at 2:51 am
I’m with Evie. I had no illusions about my book being the best of ‘04, and yet I carry on. I think most sane people who write (if that’s not too much of an oxymoron) live that way.
Oh by the way, Evie, it looks like LH is wondering what kind of vicious motive prompted you to point out, on my blog, that di Cicco blurbed JS’s book. That was the first stone, right?
And for those who have pointed out that this stuff happens all the time and no one complains: Yes they do. I have in the past, in particular relating to the poetry GG list in 2004 (see link above) and I certainly heard people who were pissed off about the Winter-Lam connection (tho more focus got paid to his ties to Atwood, who wasn’t on the jury). The fact that it happens all the time is not a very persuasive argument to tolerate it. This seems like a pre-emptive defense for those who’d like to benefit from similar constellations in the future. There are ways to make it not happen. As Jennica says, the six-degrees-of-separation argument is b.s.
But whaddo I know? I’m just an envy-plagued neo-dadaist Torontonian.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:53 am
Ick. What a lame “defense” for something that is pretty much indefensible.
I don’t understand why the poetry GGs can’t be judged by people other than poets. The year I was shortlisted for the Roderick Haig-Brown award (BC book prize) the jurors were writers, workers in the publishing industry and one I think was a high-school English teacher. This past year, one juror was a visual artist. Perhaps not coincidentally, the books that are shortlisted for that prize seem by and large to just be really interesting history or biography books and the award was not tainted by cronyism. However, the poetry prize (Dorothy Livesay) does seem to be judged just by poets. Why is there that attitude that only poets are qualified to judge poetry? Why not teachers, publishers, booksellers, novelists, etc? Because those people can understand a biography on Emily Carr or a history of residential schools but are too thick to get something with line breaks?
November 21st, 2008 at 4:02 am
Z: I’m glad you finally admit to secretly living in Toronto, the neo-dadaist thing, we always knew about that. Now that that’s out…
LH: I thought the motive would be clear, posting a question there to remain unanswered—obviously to imply some kind of malice—isn’t what I’d expect out of an honest discussion. I think the following paragraph would explain some of why people are upset about the selection:
Two members of the three-person poetry jury have clear ties to the winning title. Di Brandt, whom Scheier describes as a mentor and family friend, is thanked in the book’s acknowledgements for her “ongoing advice, support and feedback in the process of writing this book.” Brandt also co-translated one of the poems in the collection, “The Voices” by Rainer Maria Rilke. A second juror, Pier Giorgio Di Cicco, is also thanked in the acknowledgments and blurbed the book as well.—from Quill and Quire
My motives, strangely enough, come from a fondness of and respect for our literature. I’ve read what Zach and a few others have had to say over the past few years on such conflicts of interest (blatant or otherwise) and the hope was that by entering into this, a more honest discourse, we would become more forthright with our literary award jury selections and less disingenuous in these circumstances.
I was also genuinely surprised this year, I did not expect to see Brandt and Di Cicco’s names on the jacket and within the book itself. I was let down when the prize was awarded, not because “my favourite people” weren’t nominated as Brandt said but because the selection didn’t make sense. I was confident that the jurors or the poet would salvage this year’s GG’s award for poetry in English or at the very least explain what’d happened. After reading the Q&Q article I realize they had no such intention nor do they care about such concerns.
I feel like we’re in a state of what’s good for the president is good for the country—-by questioning the integrity of the jury I’m unpatriotic and evil, err… I mean jealous and Torontonian. It is easy to stay quiet and avoid the backlash you will inevitably come up against by talking about this stuff, as many poets have chosen to do. I think that what Jennica said has a lot of resonance, “clearly nothing bad happens if you make a choice with integrity”.
What did you think the motive was?
November 21st, 2008 at 7:35 am
Does anyone actually read Q&Q anymore? It’s kind of like the book version of an old woman’s magazine. They seem terribly careful about not mentioning Bookninja. I wonder if it’s an office policy. They didn’t even mention the re-branded covers thing which was picked up by book pages around the world.
As for the defense of her choice, Brandt is hoping haughty indignation makes it go away. But she can’t defend the choice. It was wrong to remain on the jury, regardless of the book’s merits.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:38 am
Another suggestion: add jurors. If one or two can’t be competely honest and recuse themselves when it’s appropriate maybe a larger number will dilute the effect of favouratism. No one has mentioned how Toronto-centric these prizes have become. Another suggestion: make the hury selection reflect the regions.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:02 am
I’m surprised to learn there aren’t any conflict-of-interest regulations for GG jurors. That seems like a logical first step, since the discretion of the jurors themselves is clearly inadequate. Blurbing may not be cause for a juror’s dismissal, but co-authoring, if we’re interested in taking our literature seriously — as writers and as readers and as tax payers — probably is.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:51 am
LM: Why should Q&Q mention Bookninja? It was Zach’s site that broke this story, George just picked it from there.
They also might not have mentioned the book cover contest because (a) it isn’t exactly “news”, and (b) they actually came up with the idea first (see the Jan-Feb 08 issue).
I don’t think it’s a conspiracy of silence.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:01 am
I agree with George’s sentiments regarding the G-G Poetry Prize affair. “Shaming with letters” to the head of the Council is not going to help. In juries that I have been on, you have to sign a form claiming that you have no conflict of interest with the people you are judging. Did the jury members in question do this? For me, this is the real question. And to say that Jacob Scheier should not have accepted the money. Get real!
November 21st, 2008 at 11:17 am
Brandt’s comments are ridiculous and reek of a caught-rehanded, finger-pointing desperation.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:37 am
Seriously, can we leave the taxpayer out of this? I’m a taxpayer and I don’t mind Scheier having whatever bit of my cash went to him for this win — because I believe in the value of the award, and I’m happy for him, though I don’t know him. The kneejerk reference to the taxpayer in these situations is really just leakage from the cheapest of political campaigns, isn’t it? Do we want to live in a republican paradise where every penny must be justified by three kinds of politically motivated oversight? I don’t. I want to hand over my taxes in trust to stewards I have confidence in, and let them do their jobs relatively unleashed. So far, with the GGs and the Council, I’m still confident.
It’s great seeing passion and continued discussion around a poetry award, but I’m just not that worried about this apparent “conflict of interest.” If there were clear guidelines for declaring conflicts and they weren’t followed then that’s pretty basic rule-breaking, and is easy enough to address without the lucky poet having to give up his prize — there’s always a large portion of luck involved, isn’t there, despite what some here might very subjectively have to say about this fellow’s poetry?
Correct me if I’ve misinterpreted but it sounds like there were NOT clear guidelines — that the GGs were running on the idea that the community is too small and the expertise of peer poets too crucial, and so they were willing to let potential conflicts exist and trust that the judges would choose a poet based on poetry and not friendship. Can we prove that DIDN’T happen, even after reference to the acknowledgement section of the book?
I assume when Zach is invited to judge the GGs next year — if he has time between impromptu poetry readings to captive audiences of Via passengers — his choices will reflect his taste in poetry. And because his taste has taken him certain places in his career and gathered him into certain groups, he may by happenstance choose a good friend of Canadian Notes & Queries. And I’ll be happy with that choice even though I may not share his taste.
Can we say that Scheier does not represent Brandt and di Cicco’s taste?
For the record, had I co-written a poem in a collection, I would declare that conflict, whether required to or not.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:50 am
If I were invited to be on a jury next year, I’d do what I’ve done twice in the past: turn it down. I have a longstanding quarrel with the jury system and until it’s reformed significantly, wish to have no part in it.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Well, Z, that in itself should provide motivation enough for the Council to change its wicked ways. Stand strong brother.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:19 pm
But Outraged, the co-writing is the whole issue. There is no other issue. Whether or not the Council stipulates that a juror can’t award a book to which he or she has contributed work, common sense does. And the whole community suffers for this sort of nonsense. I feel endlessly bad for poor Scheier, whose book is marked by this blemish. But the tax-payer does have to be considered, especially now, when a conservative government in tough financial times is taking aim at publicly funded arts organizations. I’m sure a nice slice of Canadian readers would be chuffed to learn that the hefty public endowment to the GGs is being used to dish out cash to books the judges had a hand in making. It just is not appropriate. This sort of flagrant disregard for the basic requirements of objectivity endanger the prestige, integrity, and future an award and the body that administers it. Isn’t that the thing to get indignant about, Outraged?
November 21st, 2008 at 12:46 pm
For years I’ve been pushing for a trial by fire to determine the poetry GG award:
“This test typically required that the accused (read: nominated) walk a certain distance, usually nine feet, over red-hot ploughshares or holding a red-hot iron. Innocence (read: excellence) was sometimes established by a complete lack of injury, but it was more common for the wound to be bandaged and reexamined three days later by a priest (read: Governor General), who would pronounce that God (read: talent) had intervened to heal it, or that it was merely festering – in which case the suspect would be exiled or executed (read: exiled or executed).” –Wikipedia
November 21st, 2008 at 10:44 pm
The interesting thing in all this is The Sentinel, to me. This should win the GG for this year and the next two or three for the title poem alone. It’s like someone wrote a fable as great and strange as Kafka’s best, and with all Kafka’s perfect crazy flights in writing the sentence, and then on top of that put the whole thing in English poetry worthy of Shakespeare but completely up to date. And the whole effing book’s like that. This is another instance of Canadian poetry shooting itself in the foot. We have a chance to get ourselves represented by somebody who can stand beside any poet, it seems to me, and we turn it down. Moritz here was the ugly ducking. A swan got stuck in with four scrawny chickens infected with bird flue, and naturally the other three birds preferred their own.
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
What exactly is “spiritual engagement”? I realize Di Brandt evoked this alleged quality of Scheier’s work not to explain why it won, but rather to demonstrate why it might be unpopular (and therefore derided as a winner) among these notorious neo-dadaists. However, it’s hard to avoid the implication that “spiritual engagement” helped the book triumph.
Further to George Sirtes’s comments, it’s tough to imagine how The Sentinel could be seen to abstain from spiritual engagement, no matter what the phrase means.
Perhaps Brandt meant “overt engagement with an established religious tradition”? In which case “Footprints” (that ubiquitous “poem” propagated by a gazillion keychains and plaques, in which the single set of footprints turns out to be those of Jesus toting the narrator) would have to be considered worthier of a prize than, say, “Prufrock.” Heck, I could make an important poem right now: “There once was this couple from Eden…”
Admittedly I haven’t read Scheier yet. But it will have to pretty damn stunning if it’s going to top The Sentinel—aesthetically OR “spiritually.”
Hey ZW, wrong move saying no to jury duty! The system will persist, and we need more jurors like you.
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Oh gosh. More and more I find myself agreeing with Zach. There must’ve been something in that beer he bought me in Vancouver last year.
But I’ll echo Pete in saying that Zach should reconsider turning down jury duty. It seems to me odd to both diss the selections or process and not want to be on that jury to try to right things.
And I disagree that Jacob should turn down the prize. Do you think he’s nuts?
He’s 28 and he’s a poet and he’s trying to live in New York City … and he’s going to turn down $25,000? But his reason for keeping the prize, as quoted in the increasingly muck-hungry Q&Q blog, was absurd: “Of course I’m going to take the honour, because it would be an insult to the jurors not to.”
You mean, if it wasn’t for the fact that it might insult the jurors, he’d give the prize back? (Perhaps the Q&Q was just quoting Jacob selectively and misleadingly; they’ve certainly done it to me recently.) But, look, the jurors deserve to be insulted — at least, where this prize is concerned.
Jacob should take the money and run. Right into St. Mark’s Bookshop.
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I know this is an aside, but I wish the prizes would go only to residents of Canada. Like grants.
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Pete and Stu,
Glad you think I should be a juror, but as someone pointed out to me in an email this morning, there’s no such thing as an un-unanimous GG win. So, slot me into this year’s jury in place of Connie Fife and you still have two very well-established poets arguing against one junior one. If I dig in my heels, Scheier doesn’t win. But we all three still have to agree on who does. Which is apt to reflect no one’s preferred choice. It could even be everyone’s fifth because it’s the only one all three can agree on. So what would be the point of me being on the jury. No one juror can actually have much impact. (On the shortlist, yes, but on the winner, not so much.)
Also, consider the following. One of the books eligible for the award this year that I would want to see nominated is Jeramy Dodds’ _Crabwise to the Hounds_. Not only is Jeramy a good friend of mine (I invited him to my wedding), I also had some editorial input on some of the poems, which Jeramy acknowledges in the book. Add to that the fact that Jeramy published a chapbook of mine, and you have one compromised juror. Jeramy has a prize-winning pedigree (Bronwen Wallace, CBC Literary Prize, Best Canadian Poems selection) and a lot of people agree with me that this is one of the most interesting books published this year. But in the present system, I can’t sit down with two other people and argue this disinterestedly with 25,000 dollars on the line. If there were five jurors making their decision on a points system instead of having to reach a unanimous decision, I could cast a vote for Jeramy’s book and feel confident that if the other jurors didn’t agree, he wouldn’t win. But using the present model, some kind of conflict is very hard to avoid.
So no, I don’t want to be part of a jury until there’s a system in place that doesn’t make me feel gross for taking part in it. I see no contradiction whatsoever between criticising the system and not taking part in it myself. If anything, I’d be a hypocrite if I did sit on a jury. In almost any given year, there’s going to be someone eligible for the award who I know well and either like or dislike. Right now, that is way too likely a determining factor in who gets a nod and who doesn’t.
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Is it any big surprise that the GG jury will admit no conflict of interest? The Canadian lit. industry, from its agents to its editors to its grant and prize juries, is the most unprofessional business I’ve ever had the misfortune to have been involved in. Modes of behaviour that would never be tolerated in other, more “mundane” industries (ignored e-mails, unanswered phone calls, 9- to 12-month-long submission response times, willful and palpable disregard for its content providers) seem not only to be tolerated but accepted as standard practice. There is a massive lack of talent on the administrative side of this business, and, correspondingly and unsurprisingly, an arrogance that knows no bounds. Did the GG jury do something wrong? Of course not! The jury is incapable of doing anything wrong.
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Whew,it’s getting hard even to read this sequence. But I want to point out that in my experience, there IS a conflict of interest policy on GG juries, a form to sign. However conflict of interest is mch more narrowly defined than what’s being discussed here: family member, current partner, business partner.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
A thought experiment:
“Imagine a world,” as the film trailers say, in which the government stopped funding the arts, because of corruption, or for Harperian reasons, or because of economic collapse. Pick your hypothetical.
Might it not drain the swamp quite handily? Might we not find out who is really in the arts world for the art (they will go on producing work anyway, because most of them have never made a living off arts funding), and who is in it for filthy lucre, or for a sinecure, or for social status?
No, silly, I’m not advocating this (some nitwit was pissing himself, eager to fire off his witless rebuttal). But I do think, since the money concerned doesn’t come from nowhere, that there ought to be a dictatorship of accountability (to paraphrase Mr. Putin), because as things stand, the Canadian arts world is a swamp. I learned this within weeks of publishing my first piece of writing in Canada.
Clare is certainly right about professionalism.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:20 am
I’d love to know exactly what co-writing was done. Was it editing? Or co-writing? Depends on who is defining it. Do we know what was done?
Ditto for the blurb. Some people blurb books like they’re bridge mix. How long should it take if it’s done well? Hours? Days? A week? And if it’s a quick job? 5 minutes? 10? Does 5 minutes amount to a conflict of interest?
It certainly looks like a conflict of interest, though, and that’s enough to taint everything, but we should at least be dealing with facts rather than appearances.
November 23rd, 2008 at 9:30 am
“some nitwit was pissing himself, eager to fire off his witless rebuttal”
Wow, Roland, way to take the piss out of the people in your imagination!
Anyway… with every breathe she breathes without admitting to a blatant conflict of interest, Di Brandt loses a measurable amount of credibility. Her “spiritual engagement” defense is meaningless… and laughable. Of course, all spirituality has always relied on being entirely vague and somehow beyond reproach. It’s baloney, especially in her defense of Scheier’s book, and Brandt knows it. She’s grasping at straws as she sees the respect of her peers slipping away.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
She’s clearly taken cues from Sarah Palin’s performance in the debate. “I’m not going to address that question; I’d like to speak directly to the neo-dadaists of Toronto.”
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Harold: the first poem from “More to Keep Us Warm” has this note following it:
“The Voices” is a collaborative translation, with Di Brandt, of Rainer Maria Rilke’s “Title Poem for The Voices”
November 24th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Ouch. ‘Collaborative translation.’ That seems pretty clear.
I wonder, though, if Di Brandt would define ‘collaborative translation’ differently. Might it mean ‘heavy copy edit’?
November 24th, 2008 at 10:44 am
A “heavy copy edit” is a substantial contribution to a work. Should be grounds for anyone with principles to recuse him- or herself.
The jury system has a lot of flaws, but like democracy, it’s way ahead of any other. What needs to be done is make sure that juries are changed every year and to take a cue from Caesar’s wife: it’s not only important to be virtuous but to also have appearnce of being virtuous. Therefore, jurors should be encouraged to leave the room when a buddy’s work is considered.
BTW, where were the other jurors in this case? If you read the book and saw the note about Di Brandt’s collaboration, wouldn’t you demand she recuse herself?
Mary
November 24th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Well, “heavy copy edit” … how much does that go on? Is Di Brandt being asked to take the fall here for common practice?
That being said, Mary, good point about the other jurors.
Still, might not the real question here be not what has happened in this case, but a general feeling that the CC and its GGs are not serving the needs of the writing and reading community, thus putting the whole program into political jeopardy?
November 24th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Where were the other jurors? Well, let’s see, Di Cicco was compromised too and Connie Fife maybe was intimidated by two senior well-established poets, so chose to say nothing. I don’t think this model of the jury system is anywhere near “way ahead of any other,” Mary, any more than our antiquated first-past-the-post system, complemented by a dysfunctional bicameral governmental structure, is way ahead of other possible democratic models. There’s absolutely no reason the jurors need to be in a room that they should leave while a buddy’s work is considered.
Harold, the point isn’t punishing Brandt or Scheier. They’ve been allowed to do this. The point is not allowing such a scenario to happen again. Simply telling people to behave ethically ain’t gonna cut it.
Here’s one possible way of improving things: 1)Have five jurors, each from a different region, preferably not all poets. 2)Have each juror prepare a personal shortlist of ten titles; a tenth place vote gets 1 point; a first place vote gets ten points. 3)The top five point-getters from the five shortlists make the final shortlist. 4)The five jurors vote again; a fifth place vote gets one point, a first place ten points. 5)The book with the most points wins.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I thought you all might like the new yorker story at the URL below. It’s on topic. just press the little > arrow and listen. [see link above]
November 24th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Brandt should be ashamed of herself. She comes across as desperate and delusional. But the Q&Q piece about the controversy quotes the CC as saying “You need to have a very serious conversation with the prospective juror and say, ‘Look, you need to be very sure that you can be 100% objective in evaluating [the submissions].” Which seems the equivalent of ‘cross your heart, hope to die, even though you helped write it say you can be objective and we’ll believe you.’ How do we even deal with this level of denial from the watchdog?
This reeks on so many levels.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Zach,
I like your vote system. Might I add that the Alberta system functions well. Points, then unanimous agreement at the end. I was a juror. It worked well. It made our choices better. We weren’t sequestered in a room. The BC system, just points, by rather cobbled-together juries, sucks.
Harold
November 24th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Tallying numerical results of “personal shortlists” are not the point. The point of a peer jury system is to have an actual extended and complex conversation occur among a group of diverse poets, all of whom have different sensibilities and expertises, and to produce a critical context wherein the multiple voices actually ascribe some relevant criteria and an assessment of how the Winner and Runners Ups do against the criteria for the delivery of the prize. It is always a transforming process; there is no True Winner who deserves the prize, only a persuasive argument to be made for a given winner, with all their obvious and camouflaged biases and compromises. What matters, what is the real contribution to our literature of these prize award processes, is the intensified, smart, culturally and historically situating thinking that underlies the delivery of the prize to its Victor. It is a moment where we as a community actually have a small group of poets build significant communal theory about what it is we consider important to the practice and effort of our craft, and i would always consider the deeper point of it to be an effort to articulate the true boundary-pushing and innovation of the nominated titles. I firmly believe the jurors should have to produce an extended critical monograph on the winning book and their shortlisted titles, which should be circulated across the country in book stores and creative writing programs so the occasion is actually a critical highpoint for the country’s poetry, a moment of declared manifesto, a moment that occurs in writing with great finesse and accountability, not as marketing bumph but as core innovation. Then we could be sure the books have been read deeply, that there has been extensive discussion about why they are significant innovations of literary merit, and that the quality of the discussion itself has produced a radical collaboration among diverse poets. This would be a jury system that meant something. Jurors would be paid properly for their time, and their resultant texts, and every year there wold be a text that could stand as an example of decent literary critical response, against the rest of our pathetic national “criticism” habits could then measure itself and, perhaps, be elevated from within.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
“I firmly believe the jurors should have to produce an extended critical monograph on the winning book…”
Seriously, Margaret, that’s just ridiculous. Judging a contest is not an MA thesis, and it shouldn’t be. Not all literature needs to be drowned in prolix critical theory, which is more and more about itself and less and less about literature anyway (except the kind of literature that ‘wants’ to be a secodnary text). A close reading and friendly debate should do, and stricter conflict-of-interest rules that at least say if a juror is listed as a collaborator in the book, then she must either recuse herself or disqualify the book — that should go without saying, but it looks like it needs to be said.
(And I don’t mind the point system if it prevents heated arguments, and all jurors can at least agree that the book with the highest score is worthy of the prize.)
November 24th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I’m with Paul, Margaret. That would be great in some parallel dimension in which all published poets are actually intelligent, articulate critics–but let’s face it, if 50% of the general populace is of below-average intelligence, the percentage is at least that high amongst eligible CC jurors. Given that the best we can get out of juries by way of citations now is overheated blurb prose, I would look to the possibility of a multi-thousand word extension thereof with fear and trembling. We’re talking about fixing an ethical problem, not revolutionising litcrit. Also, given how much work it is producing an essay of any length, you’d have to pay the jurors more money than is being dished out for the prize. I’ve written essays of 10,000 words for $200, but I’m a bit of a freak. (Door’s open, get your shots in, kids.)
November 25th, 2008 at 9:19 am
You get the system you envision.
If you imagine a literary culture that can do no better than unchallenged personal taste masquerading as substantive criticism, whatever the word count, then you get exactly what we have. Unwriterly reviews written in market-pitched publications by writers who are scraping by for their $75 for 400 words is not criticism, it’s not even thought. It is certainly not writerly engagement.
Carmine Starnino’s piece on Karen Solie published in CN & Q was the kind of monograph text that I think a GG jury can produce on behalf of the work they find exemplary in a given year. If the jurors were asked to do this as part of their task at hand, if it was clear that the practice of jurying a major award was going to be a significant occasion of articulating not a fixed, pre-ascertained point of view about writing, but a point of view that has been deepened, challenged, influenced and affected by the process of encountering the work that this jury working in concert has found to be culturally significant, then we would have a process that rendered something meaningful for all of Canadian poetry, no matter the point of view ultimately filed. It would be a considered act of engagement, which is the literary critical stance we need more of. What we don’t need are brief reviews that are ad copy for books.
There are lots of ways for us to build a deeper reception for the poetry that so many of us care about.
“Extended critical monograph” could be 1000 words long. Why do you think this is an excessive gesture for a jury, who ostensibly spend a few days on this process of decision making?
But as long as you feel good about responding to any colleague with the words “Seriously, Margaret, that’s just ridiculous” you will have the literary culture we have. This is not thought, this is reaction. And there is no criticism in pure reaction. Criticism is a practice of multiple rereading and reconsidering wherein the point of view of the reader deepens, becomes more substantive, more grounded. Not lifted into the certainty of flapping, frivolous opinion, which so very many contributors to these blogs seem to cherish. It’s as if you really don’t care about any of this, really, seriously, that you in fact think you yourself and your own work is ridiculous, and that we all are, and that none of it, in the end, has any cultural value at all.
I don’t agree. I think all of our work is actually quite significant, diversely so. I don’t find it difficult or a pain to read work by writers whose work emerges from a different aesthetic sensibility from my own, I don’t find it depressing to see many poets writing in many styles to many degrees of inquiry. I find the only act that means anything, as we evolve as a poetry culture, is to extend our reach across our different sensibilities and to engage with the other’s work seriously, to give it credibility where credibility is due. And to inquire into its potential credibilities, knowing it will evolve if it is received.
I’m not dreaming, because that’s what goes on in Influency, where now 39 poets have dared to “waste” their precious writing time to focus on the work of a colleague and prepare an extensive essay on a poetry that they probably would not have bothered to read unless given a context where there was seriousness and pleasure placed at the heart of the poetic act. I have been astonished at the depth of thought, and productive criticism that has emerged when we change the terms of what is sought. Not certainty, but engagement.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Don’t know how much I’d welcome the prospect of an extended essay by the jury.
But shouldn’t we at least ask jurors to test their own impressions, biases, etc., by, um, discussing them with other jurors? (And why is “preventing heated arguments” necessarily good for lit awards?)
The point system assumes that each juror’s opinions are set in stone, never to be swayed. Which, admittedly, is probably true more often than not, but still….
November 25th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I have to say, I agree with DW. The whole reason for having a jury is to discuss and debate and argue, and through that process come to a consensus on which work is most deserving.
Blatant conflicts of interest can be avoided by tightening guidelines for jury members, without resorting to a clinical point system of evaluation.
Let’s not toss the baby out with the bath water, as they say! (Has that ever happened? A baby going out with the bath water? You’d have to be some kind of bad parent to do that.)
November 25th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
If that’s really “the whole reason,” sj, then why are the deliberations kept secret as tho they might compromise the security of the nation? Why are only three jurors and some CC staff privy to these proceedings? Clearly, I’m not against “heated argument,” but I think we have to be open-eyed to the social dynamics of these things. If one or more people have more power/authority in than the other(s), there’s a damn good chance that they will have, in effect, a greater than 1/3 vote. Should they? No. But it’s naive to pretend that each juror is equal to all other jurors in this respect.
A “clinical point system” is used, e.g., to select the MVP and Cy Young winners in Major League Baseball. There’s way more debate over such decisions than over who the top bard for ‘08 might be. The point system does nothing to stifle that debate. What it does is give a more accurate reflection of what a variety of people think, rather than present some kind of bogus unanimity, which masks, 9 times out of 10, a compromise satisfactory to very few.
Margaret, I’m in fundamental sympathy with your desires, but given the dismally low standard for poetry book publication, and given that jurors must evaluate ALL of the books submitted (nearing 150 in some years) in a short time-frame, the kind of deep engagement you’re longing for is never going to happen in this particular context. It happens in Influency because you have one poet engaging with one other poet, unburdened by institutional rules and expectations. It happens in Carmine’s essay on Karen’s poetry because Carmine is an exceptionally gifted critic and Karen an exceptionally gifted poet. Quite frankly, ALL of our work does not merit such treatment. It’s nice to think it does, or that it should, or that if it did, it were actually possible–but it doesn’t and it isn’t.
As for short reviews, they are what they are. I do ‘em for pin money and to keep abreast of a fraction of what’s coming out in a given year. Most of the books I review in that format, I have little desire to read in greater depth. You can say this is taste masquerading as critical judgment–and in the cases of a good many reviews, I agree with you–but I’d call it a critical judgment informed by taste, but primarily informed by education, self-study and wide reading. As a result, I can’t say I have a terrifically good grasp on what my aesthetic sensibilities are because they keep evolving, dagnabbit.
And 1000 words is a short undergrad essay, not an extended monograph. Carmine’s piece that you mention is around 5,000 words. I wrote a 9000 word essay on Peter Sanger’s poetry for CNQ. It took me a year and a half. Granted, I have a job, but this is nevertheless a hell of a lot of work. It’s work you have to want to do; making someone do it as part of a job will result in pretty dreary fare, I predict.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
baseball, poetry
apples, oranges
November 25th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Arguments are productive. “Heated” arguments are not.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
And Margaret, just to clarify my “reaction”: somehow the words “extended critical monograph” fail to connote a brief, 1000 word response. Even your last post was well over 600 words, and is only a comment posted on a message board. So then, one might wonder, what does “extended” mean? What is an unextended “monograph,” if less than 100 words? As you can see, it’s easy to interpret the desire for an “extended critical monograph” as an unreasonable (or “ridiculous”) amount of work for a contest judge. There, wires uncrossed.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Wait, what? The GGs were announced? Controversy? Open door to call Wells a freak? What?!
Where the hell have I been?
November 25th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Oh, and Zach, your use quotation marks aside, that is exactly what a jury does: it debates, discusses, and then comes to a consensus. That’s the definition of a jury.
(And since when do juries deliberate in public?)
By all means, clamp down on conflict of interest, but there’s no need to fling Junior out with the dirty water.
Cheers!
November 25th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Who’s calling Zach a freak? He’s not a freak. He’s just wrong.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
That would be me.
An arts jury is not a perfect analogue for a criminal trial jury. In a criminal trial, we can all observe the arguments made in court and we can consult the record afterward. With the GGs, all we know is the titles submitted, the titles shortlisted and the winner. There is no record whatsoever of the debate that produces the shortlist or the winner, and all we get are mindless blurbs describing the books, so it might as well be done on points.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“In a criminal trial, we can all observe the arguments made in court and we can consult the record afterward. With the GGs, all we know is the titles submitted, the titles shortlisted and the winner.”
Hmm. Good point. I’ll give you that one.
I just find the tallying of votes without discusson to be very clinical. There’s no debate, secretive or otherwise, flawed or passionate. Just a tally.
Speaking of juries:
Canada Reads airs its debates. (The list has just been announced.)
November 25th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
A criminal jury verdict is subject to the appeal process. Grounds of appeal include misapprehension of the evidence, evidence not properly before the jury, the jury considering irrelevant evidence or failing to consider relevant evidence, the jury being misdirected by the judge, etc. Imagine that in the arts jury context and weep.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Hey Zach, the Cy Young and MVP awards are based on hundreds of votes from people who cover baseball for a living, game in game out, all season long.
Since judging a year’s crop of poetry books requires a MUCH more exclusive decision-making pool, for logistical reasons if nothing else, I’m not sure it follows that a voting system makes sense there because it makes sense in MLB.
Also, is such a system even a guarantee against ethical conflicts? I’m sure it would be harder for two or three compromised voters to unduly influence the results, but would it be impossible? (Perhaps it would be, I dunno — I lack the actuarial expertise to say.)
I do think jurors for all lit awards should be prepared to talk with some candour about what went on in the debating room. That’s been a hobby horse of mine for years.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Right you are, DW. In the absence of a core of unaffiliated journalists, however, a five-juror voting system based on points, while not precluding altogether the possibility of malfeasance, would render the likelihood of conflict-tainted decisions rising to the top much less likely. Especially if you draw one or more jurors from outside of the “pool” typically dipped into for such juries (i.e., past grant winners who specialise in the field being juried). One of the benefits of a point system is that you can also see how close the decision was, who came 2nd-5th. Unanimity almost never exists in these things, so why present the award as a pseudo-unanimous decision? Publishing each juror’s top 10 would also add complexity to the process, making far less a matter of coronation and more a reflection of the diversity and accomplishment of many different writers.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
“50% of the general populace is of below-average intelligence,” based on what criteria? Do you have a Wikipedia link to back up your claim? If anything, this speaks volumes about the ‘intelligence’ of the person making the statement, who also seems to have appointed himself the adjudicator of this discussion.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I’m sure I wrote about this before, for Bookninja, a few years ago, semi-faceciously: I suggested an academy voting system by mail-in ballot similar to the system used by the Oscars. The academy would be made up of published poets, editors, journalists, librarians, teachers, etc. Perhaps each year, a preliminary jury of five to ten readers could come up with a shortlist, and then the voting by the academy would supply the winner.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
> an academy voting system by mail-in ballot similar to the system used by the Oscars
Not sure you want to go there. Would anyone consider the Oscars a useful yardstick of the year’s most worthy films? If anything, they suggest that mass balloting DOESN’T work.
(Baseball is different, again, because accomplishments on the diamond are much more objectively measurable, and less subject to taste or interpretation.)
November 25th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Yeah, you’re right. I did say “semi-faceciously.” I can’t remember what everyone was up-in-arms about that year, but I don’t think it was as cut-and-dry as this year’s conflict of interest.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
> Yeah, you’re right. I did say “semi-faceciously.”
You know, I initially misread that as “semi-ferociously.” Which would be a pretty great word.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Actually, DW, baseball prizes are infinitely debatable. Some people think the MVP should never be chosen from a losing team. Some people think a DH should never be an MVP because his contribution is only offensive. Some people will vote for guys with good overall statistics, particularly OPS, while others look almost exclusively at home runs and RBIs. Cliff Lee won the AL Cy Young this year because he had the best won-loss record, but a lot of people thought Roy Halladay should have won because his overall numbers were more impressive than Lee’s. It’s not all that different from poetry, really. What’s different is the people voting on it aren’t baseball players or team employees, so you can at least count on their criteria being reasonably impartial.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Zach: Fair enough, all excellent examples. Though I think even the differing premises that people go into the voting with are still based on some sense of quantifiable factors. You’re not going to see the MVP trophy going to a truly terrible player, which cannot be said of arts awards.
Though now I might just be getting nitpicky…
November 26th, 2008 at 2:28 am
But that’s precisely because of the way they’re awarded!! As I believe Clare said, there can’t be many activities on the planet less professional, by and large, than the literary world. (With the possible exception of politics…)
November 26th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Nice letter on Q today, Z-money. I was also surprised to hear this erudite, civil discussion referred to as “sniping”.
November 27th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I think the prize should go to Mr. Zachariah Wells, for keeping such close tabs on everyone’s career, at the expense of his own.
November 27th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
boo-yah!