[Updated] Big news on the GG kerfuffle, this time from Winnipeg

48 comments on “[Updated] Big news on the GG kerfuffle, this time from Winnipeg”

1. Razovsky says:
   December 1st, 2008 at 1:58 pm

   Wow. To quote Derek McCormack … “The show that smells.”

2. Paul says:
   December 1st, 2008 at 2:00 pm

   Boom goes the dynamite!

3. Fish Fish says:
   December 1st, 2008 at 2:04 pm

   I believe this is referred to as a “smoking gun”.

4. Alex says:
   December 1st, 2008 at 2:52 pm

   “I hate reporting on this, but if sites like Bookninja don’t, who will?”

   George . . . come on. Who hasn’t been reporting on this?

5. sj says:
   December 1st, 2008 at 4:05 pm

   wow

6. Chloe says:
   December 1st, 2008 at 5:20 pm

   That’s bad. Really, really bad.

   And her description of this young poet is almost as bad:

   “a new emerging seer.”

   Yuck!

   I feel awful for JS — Brandt is ruining his reputation with her affections!

7. Razovsky says:
   December 1st, 2008 at 5:46 pm

   I feel bad for Jacob, too. Who would want to involuntarily be at the centre of such a weird storm? And I feel bad for ECW.

   Hopefully neither Jacob nor ECW are feeling bad for themselves.

   Stuart

8. George says:
   December 1st, 2008 at 6:05 pm

   I think we’ve all been saying all along (at least hereabouts) that none of this is Jacob’s fault. I feel sick to my stomach with it and I don’t even know the guy. But to dismiss this situation as anything but a serious breach of ethics and breakdown in the process is ridiculous. Jacob and ECW are in the ethical clear here. They can’t help what’s happened. I can’t say I’m surprised someone went for their friend in this kind of horserace—-happens all the time—-but I can say I’m surprised some people don’t think these kinds of ties would have justified a recusal, even dismissal, on the part of the juror.

9. Ian LeTourneau says:
   December 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 am

   wow! I feel bad for the guy too. this thing doesn’t seem to be going away

10. michel says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 9:03 am

    so it’s not ethical to give an award to your friends, but it is ethical to take one? This kind of muddy thinking is what caused the problem.

11. Razovsky says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 9:19 am

    I can’t see in a million years that Jacob should turn down the prize. What’s at issue here, really, is not whether Jacob’s book *deserved* to win—it’s entirely possible that a different jury also would have given Jacob the prize. Or that if Di had stepped out of the room, Jacob’s book still would have won.

    As I see it, the issue here is the process.

12. Michael Lista says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 9:58 am

    Michael Holmes, ECW editor, has an interesting response to the “controversy” in the National Post. (click on my name to link)

13. DR says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 10:25 am

    I, for one, am glad to see that the GG is coming home to deal with this crisis.

14. kevin says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 11:11 am

    As someone who has put on readings for 15 years, I should point out that letters like this to programmers are actually pretty common, especially around the two CC Literary Readings deadlines. They come from publishers, friends of the poet and even the poets themselves sometimes.

15. MS says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm

    Tempest, meet your teapot. This is one of those situations that looks bad, but really isn’t. Or, at least, is no worse than what goes on with the selection of literary awards worldwide. As the notorious Cdn entertainment lawyer Michael Levine likes to say, no conflict, no interest. It faintly reminds me of the small kerfuffle over Vincent Lam winning the Giller after having been championed by Margaret Atwood. Atwood championed, Lam won, Brandt took an interest in Scheier, Scheier won — all of these things happened but the causal chain is a lot looser than many are making it out to be. As for correcting the process, the only way to do that is to prohibit all new/emerging writers from associating with established writers. Let’s all just let the guy have his award. If another book on the shortlist (or not) was more deserving, posterity will take care of that — as it has since M. T. Kelly won the GG the year IN THE SKIN OF A LION was shortlisted.

16. Jim Bean says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    I found Holmes’ argument compelling. There’s more complexity in this situation than is being generally discussed. The charge of cyberbulling is not unwarranted. Deeper levels of analysis than “Di is so bad” would reveal more interesting narratives. Grade: C+

17. Michael Holmes says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    I stand by my cyberbullying comment to the Post, because clearly that has taken place. Jacob Scheier has been unfairly, personally attacked in all of this. But I want to make it clear that I never mentioned Bookninja, or George Murray, as the perpetrator. George has been straightup in all of this, and while we may have different opinions here, I’ve got absolutely no problem with his ethics or journalistic integrity. Other blogs, and other posters, have crossed unforgivable lines.

18. Andre Alexis says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 2:48 pm

    dear george,

    michael holmes may be a nice guy and all, but his response is unconvincing.

    first: the dedication (which i assume holmes has read, though he speaks as if he hasn’t) goes like this: “Thank you to Di Brandt and Robert Priest for their ongoing advice, support and feedback in the process of writing this book”. holmes would have it that the dedication refers to things di brandt has done in the past. to quote him: “Jacob’s acknowledgments to her basically go back to his youth, for advice and guidance on many things that are extra-literary.” no one reading scheier’s “thank you” could possibly guess that brandt was being thanked for things that happened in scheier’s youth or that the thanks had nothing to do with the book at hand. holmes is being disingenuous or, of course, dishonest.

    second: either holmes doesnt know what a frontispiece is (a picture facing the title page of a book)or thinks others don’t. the rilke poem is not separated from the rest of the book. it is not a poem apart. it is, in fact, the first poem in the book and, as such, is the book’s “front door”. we all lead with our best and this poem is one of the better in the collection, so … di brandt had a hand in creating the book’s first (and one of its more striking) poem.

    third: his account of the translation, bringing in robert bly etc, is pure comedy. let’s think through holmes’ account: one day, jacob scheier goes to his friend and mentor di brandt and asks about the meaning of the final line of a poem by rilke. ONLY the final line. only three words, really. nothing else. di brandt does not refer to the rest of the poem. they do not discuss the other parts of the poem. she has no input at all. she merely gives her version of rilke’s final line or, rather, three words in that final line. later, jacob scheier rejects her version of those three words. sounds reasonable, i guess, if you know absolutely nothing about poetry. the meaning of the last line of any poem depends entirely – for nuance and meaning – on the lines that preceded it. it isnt possible to translate the last line a poem without referring to the context which the entire poem provides for its final line. to effectively communicate her version of rilke’s last lines (or three of its words), brandt would have to talk about the whole poem. in effect, they would have to understand the poem together. unless, of course, she was merely giving a word for word, literal version of the last line (or of three words), acting as a dictionary. jacob scheier calls their version of ‘the voices’ a “collaborative translation, with di brandt” of rilke’s poem. you dont usually call the dictionary a collaborator. so, to me, holmes’ version of events is ludicrous on the face of it. even if holmes’ version of events were literally true (and in this world of alien anal probes, stranger things have happened), neither the other jurors nor the canada council member overseeing the jury could have guessed (much less known) that so little had been shared in a “collaborative translation”. they should still have been as troubled as the rest of us. (by the way: the fact that scheier went to her for the meaning of three words and then ignored her input argues for greater, not lesser, intimacy. you don’t bother strangers for trivial input.)

    fourth: holmes’ repeated insistence on his editing of the book is also comic. no one denies he’s the book’s editor. but manuscripts don’t fall from the sky whence they are given to (that most miraculous of god’s creations) the editor. as euripides says “nothing great comes all at once”. holmes may not be able to imagine it, but scheier wrote and thought through these poems for some time before he gave them to ecw and michael holmes. he has credited brandt and priest with “feedback” and “support” during the writing of his book. one can (one normally WOULD) assume that brandt’s help came before holmes was given the book. no one doubts holmes’ work or input. it’s di brandt’s input that’s at issue.
    one also assumes that holmes and scheier did not (in the editing process) eradicate the impulses, thoughts, tergiversations, doubts, long discussions about poetry and specific poems that went into the writing of “more to keep us warm”. though some book editors (holmes among them apparently) like to think of themselves as the sole midwives of a book, that isnt ever the case. it is reasonable to assume (given scheier’s “thank you”) that brandt was an essential part of the books creation, though she had no hand in the final edit.

    fifth: holmes, as brandt did, blames poets for needlessly (and without any good reason) prolonging this “controversy”. he says: “it’s really a small group of people – 20 or 30 bloggers – who’ve continued to stir this pot”. now, setting aside the fact that a book of poems that sells 500 copies is a “bestseller” and, so, 20 or 30 people represent a decent percentage of the book’s readership, he reduces this whole controversy to some misguided effort (on the part of vindictive people) to “bully” di brandt or jacob scheier. this is, of course, his own effort to bully people into shutting up about it, accusing them of causing pain to poor di brandt and poor jacob scheier. it’s a cheap and childish manoeuvre, but very much in keeping with the tone of an interview in which no other perspective but his own is given time, attention or credence.

    sixth: honestly, the repeated and gratuitous kicking robert bly takes at the foot (from the foot?) of mr holmes is kind of amusing but not all that relevant. scheier didnt do anything wrong. his unwillingness to emulate robert bly is honourable, i guess, but it doesnt have much to do with anything. di brandt helped him translate or think through or work our or understand (choose your descriptor) a poem which is the first one in the collection. that is proof of her involvement with the book and her involvement with the book is what’s at issue. nothing else.

    seventh: the convener of the jury should, on noticing that brandt was thanked for her “advice and feedback”, on seeing that brandt had a hand in scheier’s translation, on noticing that a poem in the collection is titled “di”, should have asked di brandt to leave the room when it came to judging the winner. it isn’t really conceivable that brandt could have been “objective” under the circumstances. that the convener did not do so suggests: thoughtlessness or neglect or unwillingness to question di brandt’s objectivity. holmes seems to think that, as the Canada council approved this decision, all must have gone right (meaning: according to guidelines) in this process. his assumption is serves his own argument, but that’s all it does.

    eighth: in the end, holmes reduces scheier’s relationship with brandt to being one in which brandt, feeling friendship for scheier’s mother, naturally looks kindly on scheier’s work. he even adds: “… the fact that Di had a relationship with Jacob’s mother many years ago, and has continued to look out for him, and appreciates his work, only, I think, in a lot of ways, makes her a pretty decent judge of the merits of his work.” this is, of course, the crux of the problem. she is a “decent” judge of his work because she knows him, likes him, and is familiar with his work. she did not have this relationship with any of the other books or any of the other poets. and, again, that is the point. it was unfair for the other books and poets. those of us who do not want to “cyberbully” scheier or brandt, who feel the Canada council is culpable in all this, have been saying the same thing: this was not a level playing field. the winner of the award, therefore, through no fault of his own, cannot be said to have won honourably. the point is not to defend or malign jacob scheir. it is to think through the checks and balances in the jury process and see if they can be strengthened. (for instance: it might not be feasible to read through every book submitted, but surely the final five should be vetted (and read by the convener) for juror implication.)

    yrs
    aa

19. LH says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 3:16 pm

    AA, I thought your piece in the G&M was quite level-headed even if I didn’t agree with it all. There is surely still room for that, no? And I do think the CC needs to be accountable for its rules such as they are. What is the appropriate way to get that done? I’m not sure.

    But while your piece was quite level-headed, and other pieces in print, and even some on blogs, were also level-headed, there was (and is) the air of the witch hunt, or, as Holmes suggests, the cyber-bullying. This has become part of the poetry scene, a reality that the poetry community seems to have come to accept, and not just in comments streams. It’s very disturbing.

    As is the publication of a private email and public mocking. Or am I the only one who thinks that crosses some lines?

20. Andre Alexis says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    LH,

    no i agree with you. this should be about a too-closeness between a juror and a nominee. the thing is, both di brandt and, now, michael holmes, have made it seem as if any objection to the process is motivated by scorn or dislike or wrongheadedness. it’s kind of natural, don’t you think, to defend your position, especially when you’re being called absurd or petty or a bully? i’m not a member of the poetry community, so i don’t know its dynamics. in that sense, michael holmes could be quite right in ascribing negative motives to some of the participants in this debate. (i also think that divulging di brandt’s email goes way too far. she hasn’t bombed a cambodian village.) michael holmes should remember, though, that there are people who care about poetry without wishing to destroy poets or poetics they don’t approve of. to me, in fact, the thing that rankled most was di brandt’s refusal to accept that some of the commentators in this matter have a good point. it rankled also when i read michael holmes’ interview.

    yrs
    aa

21. LH says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 4:08 pm

    AA,
    Fair enough, yes, and your piece really was a thorough examination of the issue (though I had not read your response above). Michael Holmes made some very good points too, as have others in the discussion. And sadly, there was also some very irritating defensiveness on the part of those under scrutiny–as others have pointed out.

    I really wish there was a way to have slower, more moderate (less heated) discussions of these matters, which is why I wonder what the appropriate venue is? This is the down-side of comment boxes and blogs, one hits the publish/send button too quickly, or easily…as I think every time I do the very same.

    LH

22. michel says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm

    let’s meet in a bar and punch it out, like poets should.

23. name withheld by request says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 4:33 pm

    Can we really call an email that contains the phrase “please pass this message on to relevant colleagues” or something similar a private communication? Once you give permission to forward a message, there’s no telling where it goes.

24. Alex says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 5:18 pm

    None of this has anything to do with Jacob Scheier or his book. So it’s sad to see it being called “the Jacob Scheier controversy” (in the Post). It’s not. Whether “More to Keep Us Warm” was the best book of poetry published last year or not is immaterial to any of the issues involved. (For the record, I thought it was an OK book but I wouldn’t have picked it as the winner. But I disagree with the jury every year.) This is the Di Brandt controversy.

    With regard to posting the letter written from Brandt: Was this a private e-mail? Or something sent out to a mail list, unlooked-for if not unwanted by most its recipients? While maybe not spam, it sounds like a public or at the very least semi-public piece of writing. She probably would have been thrilled if, at the time, people had shared it and passed it around. I can’t imagine she had any expectation of privacy about it.

25. George says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 5:49 pm

    I thought hard over whether to publish that letter, but seeing how the connection was being denied and downplayed in other venues, I thought it pertinent to the story. Furthermore, it was sent to me by more than one source on the original list. Also, now that I check my archives, it was forwarded to Bookninja last year, for the very reason it was intended: to be used as a publicity tool.

    I don’t feel I’m mocking anyone and resent the implication, and I haven’t divulged anyone’s address. I did post a newsworthy, pertinent, public piece of correspondence, and I wouldn’t have done so if I thought it wasn’t any one of those three things. I’ve tried to be level-headed and fair here, given the evidence at hand. The situation sucks. But it has a positive side in that it’s highlighted serious ethical gaps in how business gets done.

26. Alex Boyd says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 6:28 pm

    Call me old-fashioned, but I think there’s a “serious ethical gap” when L M (whoever that is) can post pretty much completely anonymously that the Scheier book “felt like creative writing class excerpts.” I posted under Penboy years ago on Bookninja, but I never said anything like that, and I’m now a firm believer in saying something under your own name, or not at all. Is there no way to make that a requirement? It would help the atmosphere here immensely.

    And I think emails shouldn’t be posted online, out of context, and without any explanation from the sender.

27. George says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 6:37 pm

    Alex, how was that email posted out of context?

    I suppose I could set the blog to require registration from users before they comment. I’ve resisted that because it would mean some perennially shy people would probably never post. Some people, like yourself, have shed their pseudonyms over the years, while others haven’t. I can tell who some people are by their email addresses (which you can’t see), but quite a few regulars are unknown to me. It’s never really been an issue until now. I’ve moderated quite a few comments in the past by holding them in cyber limbo until the sender either agreed to make them more civil or less libelous, but it’s quite a burden to police it. Maybe registration is the way to go?

28. DW. says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 6:41 pm

    > And I think emails shouldn’t be posted online, out of context, and without any explanation from the sender.

    What context does the Di Brandt e-mail require?

    Also, it was clearly intended as an impersonal mass email (”hi friends,” “please pass this on to relevant colleagues”) so I don’t think it was really an invasion of privacy.

29. Alex Boyd says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 6:56 pm

    I’m just suggesting that if someone were to post an email of mine, I’d want the opportunity to at least provide a comment with it. Privacy issue aside, it’s kind of naked without an explanation, isn’t it?

30. George says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    The reason I posted the entire email, instead of the most relevant last line, was to provide context for what it was. The email itself IS an explanation.

31. Andre Alexis says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 7:09 pm

    george

    you didnt do anything wrong by posting the email.
    i think the problem with brandt’s email is that it’s original context has to be kept in mind. di brandt sent that email out a year ago. she wasn’t doing anything wrong. she was promoting the work of someone she knows, likes and wants to help. a year ago, this email was, more or less, an act of generosity on di brandt’s part.

    seeing in now, in the context of a “scandal”, gives the email the wrong kind of weight. it feels like a “gotcha” moment, when it isnt. stripped of its original (wholly innocent) context, it feel sinister and underhanded. but if you think about it, the email doesnt really add anything to what we already know: di brandt is/was way too close to jacob scheier to be a credible judge on a gg award jury when scheier’s work was under consideration. scheier’s thanks, his co-translation, his poem named “di” … these things tell us all we need to know. this email confirms what we know, but it isnt an evil moment in the life of an underhanded person.

    a

32. Alex Boyd says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 7:18 pm

    OK, fellas. I don’t want to hang around here all night. And I’m not trying to make you out to be a bad guy, George, I just wanted to register the opinion that posting emails doesn’t ever sit comfortably with me. And I think the forum routinely sabotages the potential for serious discussion if people can post anonymously. Psychologists actually have a word for our tendency to be more hostile online: disinhibition. Some of the discussion has been fine, I’m thinking mainly of a few nasty remarks here and there. Regardless, I think we belabor the point, and as long as we belabor the point Scheier will continue to get caught in the crossfire. Surely anyone who feels strongly enough about it has written a letter by now.

33. Paul Vermeersch says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 7:22 pm

    Let’s not shoot the messenger. That George spends so much time gathering news of interest to so many people is a public service, and he is clearly very good at it. To my way of thinking, Bookninja is the litblog of record in Canada, and I think George should be commended for his diligence. He could be spending his time doing other things. Clearly this story and these issues are of interest to a number of people, and George is doing his best to cover it as fairly and thoroughly as possible. He has not been disparaging of Jacob Sheier or ECW Press, and that is as it should be. I also feel bad that their happy moment has fallen under such a pall, but I think the questions being raised are valid and deserve to be asked, explored and answered. The email is relevant to the story and was sent to a large number of people with the intent of being forwarded to a much larger number of people, so I feel that it is not only fair game, but also journalistically appropriate. If Di Brandt wishes to speak to the email, she is welcome to contact Bookninja or the media outlet of her choice and address the issue. I suspect George would welcome that, and Bookninja’s readers would likely be interested. George has shown that he is interested in covering all angles of this story, so let’s not beat up on the guy. He’s trying to perform a service for all of us.

34. LH says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 8:02 pm

    I’m not sure that anyone is beating up on George, or shooting the messenger. At least I don’t mean to. I appreciate the delicacy of covering such a story–it’s difficult to wade in at all. And in the same spirit of tenuous wading in, I brought up the email because I’m not comfortable with it or the dialogue it provoked.

    I think that perspective also needs to be heard. Thanks for the opportunity to speak, that’s my yearly quota.

    LH

35. Michael Lista says:
    December 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    Jacob Scheier’s position is nightmarish. Kafkaesque. A huge, prestigious award–supposedly the highest in the land–received with all this buzzing, banal nonsense. I wish it wasn’t on him. His work isn’t the question, which is the problem. The question is the method; was the prize awarded “to the letter,” and more importantly, to the spirit, of the prize? According to the GG guidelines:

    A conflict of interest may exist if:

    * the assessor contributed to the development of one of the books (conflict of interest exists if the assessor has made a direct, intellectual contribution to one of the books)
    * the assessor has written a promotional text or review of one of the books
    * the assessor’s name is listed in the acknowledgements section (conflict of interest exists if the assessor’s name is listed in such a way that it implies a contribution to one of the books).

    If a juror believes her connection to the most worthy book on the shortlist may endanger the prospects and validity of the book’s winning, she should step down. Let the cream rise. Otherwise, the only person who suffers is the winner. All a good book needs is to be read.

36. Michael Holmes says:
    December 3rd, 2008 at 8:50 am

    Andre: while I admit I was a bit heated in my responses to Mark, I hope you understand–I remained silent while all of this spiraled into the ridiculous and cruel, and frustration had mounted. Jacob and More to Keep Us Warm had and have been treated unfairly, for far too long. But I stand by my comments as well. You might find them comic, but they’re facts. Incontrovertible facts.

    Your Globe piece raised interesting points, but it was an opinion-based editorial.

    It certainly wasn’t journalism, literary or otherwise.

    Again, if anyone had bothered to ask, they could have had access to the facts as well.

    Be well, and best always,

    Michael

    Folks can find them funny if they want, I guess. But that makes me despair. Maybe there’s something more productive to be done with these facts? Something that less personal?

37. Great big Face says:
    December 3rd, 2008 at 2:33 pm

    if you think there was a problem with the GG jury you should be directing your ire (and good ideas) at the cc. it was the discretionary call of one of their well-paid officials that sanctioned the make-up of the jury when the question of a conflict was duly brought up. i get incensed at the make-up of juries all the time and when i do i write letters to the administrative bodies concerned. it is kind of satisfying. To direct a lot of bad feeling at jacob scheier is the easy way out (except for him). He’s been the recipient of a l00,000 bucks worth of nasty stress. ‘kafkaesque’ is right. So, I ask you all, — please lay off Mr. scheier and re-focus on the CC.

    And yes, I was thanked in jacob’s book for feedback support and advise. here’s what that means. my feedback at most was to say ‘well done’ or its equivalent after hearing him recite his poems at readings. as for support – i imagine he was just thanking me for my friendship during a difficult personal crisis he was going through. advice… well i don’t remember but i should have said ‘be careful what you wish for’. i’m telling you all this to make the point that being thanked lavishly by jacob does not necessarily mean one has worked on his ms. in fact i did nothing to change the actual ms. not a word. though i like to think my poetry influenced him a bit here and there. i also blurbed the book because i think he is a talented young writer and i like to encourage that.

38. Great big Face says:
    December 3rd, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    I forgot to add my name to the great big face posting above. Robert Priest (I really do have quite a large face as you’ll see if you click on the link. rp

39. Paul Vermeersch says:
    December 3rd, 2008 at 5:21 pm

    You know, I really don’t think anyone is directing any blame at Jacob. If they are, they are off base.

40. Evie says:
    December 3rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm

    I agree with Paul, I haven’t seen anyone attacking Scheier (unless I’ve missed something?)

41. sj says:
    December 3rd, 2008 at 5:57 pm

    Quick question then. Everyone is going out of their way to be kind to Jacob and excuse him from the controversy.

    But how does the GG jury work? Did he know that his mentor and mom’s good friend was on the jury? I’m curious to know.

    Thanks.

42. Razovsky says:
    December 3rd, 2008 at 6:14 pm

    The way these juries work, so far as I know, is that they are not revealed publicly until the prizewinner is announced. But even if they were, what was Jacob to do: pull his own book out of the running? It’s not his responsibility to do that.

43. George says:
    December 3rd, 2008 at 6:29 pm

    I think that’s right, Stuart. In fact, it’s not only not his responsibility to pull his book, it would be a comical, melodramatic over-reaction to have done so. Knowing, even well, someone on a jury doesn’t mean your book can’t compete in that pool. It means they can’t fairly judge, at least in the eyes of world.

    You just have to rely on your friend/acquaintance/whatever to do the right thing when it comes time in the process and recuse themselves from discussion of, and voting on, your book. In cases of (even in appearances) extreme conflict-of-interest such as this, a responsible juror would step down from the jury in order to protect the author and book they loved.

44. Andre Alexis says:
    December 3rd, 2008 at 8:34 pm

    michael

    i should have mentioned, as george did, how much i admire your work at ecw and that my responses to your national post interview were not meant to insult you. i reacted to your take-no-prisoners defense of “more to keep us warm” in kind. that never works. so, there you go. sorry.

    as to the globe piece being my opinion: yes, of course. that’s why it was in the review section. the facts in this case are elementary and few: a jury convened, it chose five books it thought represented the best works of poetry and, in the end, it decided on jacob scheier’s book.

    i probably should have tried to imagine a situation in which the gg jury’s choice was relatively un-tainted. all juries come with a bias. as bp nichol once said to fred wah – i was on a jury with fred, once – “remember, fred, the winner is always a compromise”. yes, true. so, let’s imagine that, after a great struggle, giorgio di cicco managed to hold out for al moritz’ book. di brandt held out for ruth roach pierson and jacob scheier, and connie fife went for weyman chan and sachiko murakami. i dont think this is an incredible guess, given the respective aesthetics of the different jurors. and, at the end of the day, di cicco probably would opt for scheier over murakami or chan, while fife would have opted for scheier over moritz or pierson. brandt, of course, would have opted for scheier, if she were the deciding vote. in that scheier does, actually, represent brandt’s aesthetic, this isn’t a huge leap of the imagination and, were it not for her closeness to scheier, no one would have had anything else to say about the matter.

    in fact, if the canada council had said, straight away: brandt was superfluous in the choice of the winner or, say, brandt had nothing to do with choosing the winner, there would be no controversy at all.

    if di brandt, instead of attacking those who questioned her closeness to scheier, had said: i had no hand in choosing the winner. there would be no questions asked. (and, when you think of it, if di cicco and fife HAD to agree on a collection, scheier’s would probably be the only one they COULD agree on.)

    the thing is, brandt did attack. then, the canada council gave an account that said “our guidelines were followed”, without specifically mentioning the weight di brandt had in determining the winner. it doesnt take much imagination to see where that would lead. it led directly to this “controversy”. the more the cc or brandt belittled those who had concerns, the more those concerns seemed relevant.

    at issue, michael, don’t you think?, is the feeling that the gg matters: not just for the money, though that really does matter for poets, but for the principle of the thing. we know there are no objective scales on which or with which to judge poetry. we know that literary juries are as unpredictable as any other juries (ojay did get off, yeah?) but something inside all of us (well, inside of me anyway) still holds to a (admittedly limited) notion of objectivity, to a version of objectivity that can tell the relative value of a limerick by isaac asimov from that of a sestina by james k baxter. and that’s the objectivity (frail as it is) we want defended and applied in the judgment of awards. yes, everybody knows this objectivity is a dream but when there is evidence (and i think brandt’s closeness to scheier is evidence) that there’s been no attempt at objectivity, it destroys the value of awards themselves. (and imagine, michael, that ecw published al moritz, not jacob scheier. how would you feel about this controversy? where would you stand?)

    this isnt the end of the world. if people have been cruel to jacob, that’s kind of unconscionable.
    nothing in all this is about him or his work (it’s even less about ecw). as someone else said in one of these threads: mt kelly’s novel (what was its name/) won a gg the year “skin of the lion” was up for the award. if jacob’s book is any good, it’ll last. but the fuss people make (with reason, i think) is about oversight, its about making sure the canada council holds to and upholds its own principles: a fair designation – in so far as “fair” is any less chimerical than “objective” – of a winner. otherwise, it sours the process, creates a sense of cynicism about all judgments of work and, generally, just plain pisses people off.

    peace to you, too, michael.

    andre

45. MS says:
    December 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    M. T. Kelly’s GG was for A DREAM LIKE MINE (1987).

46. Nathan says:
    December 4th, 2008 at 10:15 am

    Remember when it was the Gillers everyone was mad at for being corrupt and picking the wrong books?

47. V. Barch says:
    December 4th, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    “Oh poor Jacob!”
    “Oh poor Jacob!”

    No critical review for poor frkn Jacob I reckon?

48. Dan says:
    December 5th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    I think a critical review of Scheier’s book is simply a separate issue from a juror’s conflict of interest, and I’m not sure a comment’s thread on a discussion board is the place to find primo literary criticism. The book has been reviewed in the Globe and Mail, on GoodReports.net, and probably other places. Let your fingers do the walking.

Discuss