News | Sunday, 14 December 2008

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Judging a book…

Authors, critics and publishers were outraged by the results of the National Book Award last week. Karl Schembri finds out why

The fact that this year’s National Book Award for literature went to an author who has been dead for nearly 70 years was already a red flag signalling that something is terribly wrong with this once prestigious literary event.
But discovering that a jury member had awarded his own son, as well as a translation of his own work, was the last straw.
Rumours among the little community of authors, critics and publishers were rife last week about the possibility that author Frans Sammut was among the jurors who awarded a prize to the book of short stories by Ġużè Bonnici – dead since 1940 – and edited by his own son, Mark Anthony Sammut, on behalf of l-Għaqda tal-Malti.
The list of jurors was strangely kept unpublished in the event’s official booklet last week, but when the National Book Council finally gave the list of jurors after requests from the press, the truth was even worse than the fiction: Sammut was also a juror on the award for translated works in which his own novel – Il-Ħolma Maltija, translated to Esperanto – won first prize.
Immanuel Mifsud – an established author who this year served as a member of the jury on the category for prose and translated works together with Frans Sammut – says he was against Bonnici’s book winning, and that he couldn’t grade Sammut’s translation to Esperanto as he didn’t know the language.
“Bonnici’s short stories shouldn’t have been allowed to participate, and I informed the council I couldn’t judge a book in Esperanto, so as far as my input was concerned, I didn’t give them good grades, yet they still won, so other jurors must have given them full grades,” Mifsud said. “We should be awarding contemporary writers, not works written ages ago.”
Besides this particular conflict of interest (members of the National Book Council are also allowed to participate in the awards), the ceremony has also elicited strong reactions for the fact that it is ending up awarding dead authors, organisations and anthologies. Last year, the National Language Council placed second with an anthology of writings by several authors.
Literary critic Mario Cassar, who was one of the jurors entrusted with the evaluation of the books submitted for the award, says he argued against the eligibility of Bonnici’s collection of short stories for the award, although his opinion went unheeded.
“The book is the work of a dead author and the editor had not a hint of merit from a purely literary point of view,” Cassar says. “Consider this scenario: I collect the poems of a dead poet and go on to collect the award without having written one bloody verse, while another poet who has valid and original works ends up second. What’s happening here? Who’s getting the prize? The editor? L-Għaqda tal-Malti? Bonnici’s relatives? If, against my judgement, the book was eligible, then the award should at least go to Bonnici’s descendents.”
Author Mario Azzopardi says it is “absurd to continue awarding institutional bodies like the Language Council or a Language Society: the awards should go to acknowledge individual creativity and authentic research, and not the collation of material belonging to writers long dead and buried. The roundabout route to make organisations benefit should stop; there should be other ways to benefit these organisations.”
Clare Azzopardi, who last year won first prize for fiction with her book of short stories Il-Linja Ħadra, agrees that the decision to include Bonnici’s stories was already bad enough, but having the editor’s father among the judges was “a terrible mistake”.
“How can you have a book with stories written decades ago competing? Who is being awarded here? What criteria are the judges using? Do they have any criteria? Can we get to know them? And how can you have a member of the jury who is a relative of one of the competitors? How can the book council let all of this go through?”
The multitude of religious books that hijack the book awards across different categories is also a sore point among authors. The Bible – over 2,000 years old – found itself among the winners in the category for “translations and books in other languages for children”. And apart from a book on St Ġorg Preca by Joe Mikallef winning this category of religious books, the category for children’s prose was also won by a pamphlet on Dun Ġorġ by Emanuel Curmi, while a book on icons and the Gospel won second prize for research.
An irate Chris Gruppetta of Merlin Library – which has made a name for itself as a leading publisher of children’s books – says having the pamphlet on Dun Ġorġ winning the children’s literature was an insult.
“I get very upset when a biography of a Maltese saint wins first prize in the children’s category as ‘Best Fiction’. Am I missing something here, or was it just an error of classification? I would expect that when an error is so serious and so incontrovertible, serious action would be taken. And by action I mean withdrawing the prize and reassigning it. I’m afraid that just taking note for the following year is not good enough – and is not fair on the authors, illustrators, designers, publishers who have worked so hard to produce all the other candidates in the category’s shortlist. Saying that this year’s winner was the best children’s fiction book in 2007 is an insult to all of us.”
Clare Azzopardi, who works as a teacher, says she feels embarrassed explaining to her students that the first prize for children’s books went to a “pamphlet that is distributed for free to children attending MUSEUM”.
“I thought Dun Ġorġ’s life wasn’t fiction. Am I wrong? It’s already wrong to have this booklet in the wrong category, but worse than that, it’s a leaflet. What criteria did the judges use to award it? Church values? Honestly, I feel this cannot go on.
“Last year there was a textbook on Ġaħan winning first prize when it wasn’t even published in that year. I also can’t understand how there is a category for religious books, while at the same time religious books keep being submitted in all other categories. So what’s the point of the religious category? And what’s the idea of a religious category and not, say, a category for books on art?”
Mario Azzopardi says religious books should not even feature among the book awards. They could easily be awarded by the Curia.
“The Book Awards categories need an urgent, insightful rethink. There are categories which should be eliminated, like awards being conferred for doctrinal writings or religious expositions, unless these represent historical or cultural interest; there are many other opportunities to award religious writings such as a recycled version of the Bible. Awarding such books will continue to promote the assumption that in Malta, religion permeates every single range of human activity in a manic fashion. The Seminary should be awarding such works, or the Curia.
“Then there are other vital works, for instance feminist writing as such like, a valuable source for springboards to alternative ideas, that should be categorised for specific awards, as well as areas involving technical works, like contemporary dictionaries or literary, critical evaluations. Gay writing should also stand out as an intrinsic category.”
Mario Cassar however believes that categories should be made fewer, not increased.
“There should be no distinction between works in Maltese and in foreign languages. Poems and novels are either well written or badly written,” he says.
On the other hand, Immanuel Mifsud says only works in Maltese should be awarded.
“I know of no other literary award that goes to books that are not written in the mother language of the country,” Mifsud says.
Another bone of contention is the secrecy surrounding the awards. Besides the name of judges that were kept under wraps, even the judges’ appraisal, criticism and the points they award to every book are kept secret so as not to offend mediocre writers who might get scathing remarks from the jury.
“The names of those serving on the respective judging panels should be made public for the sake of transparency, as well as their reports and marks awarded,” Mario Azzopardi says. “This is a tiny country and vested interests could be playing a crucial role in awarding or not awarding a particular author. The disclosure of the people forming the panels should also ascertain that those summoned to act as judges are competent enough to make appropriate, dispassionate and objective selections.”
Mario Cassar insists that not only the judges’ names have to be made known, but they must also justify their judgement through publicising their reports.
“For the sake of transparency, the judges must be known. Nobody should have reason to fear having his name made public, if anything they should be capable of justifying their choices. I also disagree with the idea that judges do not know who else is on the judging panel. What’s better than having judges meeting around a table and find some form of consensus?”
As if to pre-empt all this barrage of criticism, the book council has, in its latest communication described the book awards as “a work in progress”.
Gruppetta says the only reason why he keeps submitting his books for the award was because it was the only kind of recognition for authors and publishers in Malta.
“There’s no alternative award, nor is there an official bestsellers list as exists in many other countries. For people in the book trade – but perhaps especially for people outside – the Awards remain the only yardstick of how good a book is. Unlike some, I actually applauded the Council’s decision to turn the Awards to ‘National’ rather than ‘Literary’, as I think some excessive elitism and concern for Literature with a capital L at all costs is doing more harm than good to the levels of reading in Maltese. This inclusiveness can only help make Maltese books more accessible. Errors happen, and I think we’d be unfair to the Council if we expected no error to ever slip through. I want to say, in the Council’s defence, that the present team has done much to improve the Awards – many suspect procedures were eliminated, voting was improved to lessen one judge’s influence over the rest, and some new categories have been added.”
Clare Azzopardi believes that the council should go back to the drawing board and come up with a totally different way of recognising Maltese literature.
“The council should launch a seminar that is open to everyone – authors, religious people, publishers, and journalists – where everyone can ask his questions to the council members and demand explanations, and where everyone can give his vision. The National Book Award doesn’t need to be held at Prime Minister’s office to be prestigious, it needs to be a sincere recognition of literary merits. What happened instead is that it is being organised in Castille in the most ridiculous way possible.”
Immanuel Mifsud agrees the book council needs to rethink everything, including the annual book fair which leaves much to be desired when it comes to promoting Maltese authors and Maltese literature.
“There is definitely the need for a radical overhaul. You have ridiculous books competing with really good ones, because there is no short-listing. I would prefer to have less awards and having paid members of the jury giving a literary award. Religious books can be easily awarded by the Church. This is a national award, so I expect it to award works in Maltese, not in English or other languages. If you want to help translations, then we need a serious programme to that effect, financing the translation of contemporary works, not trying to award them as an afterthought.”

The jurors

Literary prose – Immanuel Mifsud, Frans Sammut, Mariella Pisani Bencini

Non-fiction – Alfred Ellul Galea, Fr Norbert Ellul Vincenti, Charles Galea Scannura

Poems – Simone Inguanez, Louis Briffa, Charles Coleiro

Drama – Alfred Mallia, Monica Attard, Stephanie Farrugia

Research – Joseph Brincat, Joe F. Grima, Charles Dalli

Children’s and adolescents’ literature – Maria Pace, Jesmond Grech, Pauline Miceli

Special award for outstanding contribution to literature – Speaker of the House Louis Galea (Chairman), Evarist Bartolo, Michael Schiavone.
Evaluation jury: Anthony Mangion, Mario Cassar, Martes Paris

Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.