The judges have just been announced for the 2007 Montana New Zealand Book Awards. Dr Paul Millar, a senior lecturer in New Zealand literature at Victoria University of Wellington, is joined on the judging panel by the writer David Larsen and the broadcaster Morrin Rout.
Once again, the judges and their advisors are overwhelmingly from academia; only David Larsen (pictured) is likely to be known to the wider reading public. Still, this is one better than last year, when we had Lawrence Jones of the University of Otago as convener, assisted by writer Linda Burgess and publisher Bob Ross.
In the past, the judges and advisors have had a considerably higher profile. In 2002 for example, the convener was Witi Ihimaera. In 2003, the fiction category adviser was Keri Hulme.
This is nothing personal: the judges and advisors are all respected names, and Millar is correctly described as ‘The nation’s JK Baxter expert’ in the press release.
But it does seem to me that the Montanas are increasingly missing a trick. After all, they are supposed to be the most prestigious New Zealand literary awards, with the Prime Minister being wheeled out on the night. We have an extraordinary pool of literary talent in New Zealand, and this talent pool is not being used to best effect.
The Montana prize money has not increased over the years, either, despite the appearance of much richer awards and grants in recent times. The winner in each category receives a prize of $5,000; each category winner is eligible for the Montana Medal for non fiction or poetry or fiction, both of which carry a prize of $10,000. In real terms, using a CPI calculator, this is a drop of over 10% since 2002.
At this rate, the Montana's prestige will soon be reliant on nothing more than its 13-year heritage and the presence of our leaderene at the show – which, incidentally, is on Monday 30 July this year.
Something for the Montana management committee to have a think about?
29 Jan 07 | Filed by Chris | Add your comment (7 so far)
If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email.
Comment by Islander ~ January 29, 2007 6:59 PM
This is an interesting item: I'll make two comments.
1)The increasing academicisation of literature - obviously, academics read books - but I'm not sure they read them in the same way as ordinary readers do. (Check out A&LD for a very interesting article about storytelling...) I, for one, would like to see any academic-as-judge balanced by 'ordinary reader' (and no, this is not a publishing sector representative, nor another writer.)
2)I have been an advisor for the Montanas. The pay was miniscule & not worth my time, expertise, and investment of energy. And my advice was totally ignored. I can well understand why very few writers want to undertake this job.
The Montanas are faded as major literary prizes.
Comment by Ernest ~ January 30, 2007 8:34 AM
Why should "higher profile" people be better judges than lower profile people? Why are writers necessarily better judges than non-writers? Paul Millar's job is to read and think about New Zealand writing -- his full-time job. He's a professional. David Larsen is one of the country's best book reviewers. To me this post is just another round of the tendency in this country to denigrate those whose job it is to think -- the kind of anti-intellectualism that makes sure we go round and round in circles in our little corner of the Pacific, seldom if ever producing writing that the rest of the world gives a hoot about. The enemy is mediocrity, not "academics".
Comment by Islander ~ January 30, 2007 5:04 PM
Wow Fergus, what an amazing lurch!
Going from comments about the Montana to your charges of anti-intellectualism and what you perceive as general all-round mediocrity in writing, past, present & to come.
In the circles I move in, we dont necessarily equate intellectual with academic. I know a lot of intellectuals - very few of them are academics. (Granted, I dont know many academics either.) I have received more acute criticism from readers who are not academics than from Academia. In fact, I've read some incredibly silly stuff from academics - which is why I suggested 'ordinary readers' - like librarians for instance - as suitable for judges...
'High profile' generally means 'higher publicity value' - the Montanas are nothing if not about publicity.
Comment by fergus ~ January 30, 2007 7:01 PM
Sorry, Keri, not me. You'll know when it is because my name will be on it.
Comment by Islander ~ January 30, 2007 9:29 PM
Arrrgh!
Apologies Fergus!
(Curse myopia & an eye infection which means I cant wear my lens*)
ok, Ernest???
- Would be grateful for tips on cleaning nasal grease off LCD screens-
Comment by Kathy ~ February 4, 2007 11:31 AM
An email came through to LeafSalon from a reader who declines to personally comment but I felt, with her blessing, that her remarks should be passed on:
‘I feel Morrin has been done a bit of a disservice: she is well known, especially in the South and has been devoted to books and authors for years and years. She's not only put in the hard yards through keeping book programmes alive but in long (and grinding?) years of devotion programming/assisting with the organisation of various festivals in Christchurch – The Women's Festival, The Press festival, the poetry night at the arts fest etc...’
The same person would like to point out that ‘quite a few high profile people decline to be involved and there have moreover been cases where advisors (including at least one high profile writer) have read carefully and prepared full reports on all those books and then had the whole thing ignored …’
After being privileged to be present at last year’s fabulous event, it’s obvious that it has lots of dosh thrown at it and there ain’t nothing else like it on these shores. Therefore it would be great if it could be a really serious national media frenzy, thus bringing the delightful state of our writing to the attention of Everyone. But given that it’s a hell of a job, everyone’s busy and there’s such a comparatively small pool of ‘suitables’ who haven’t already been there and done it, or who don’t have compromising vested interest in the outcome of the Awards, I think the no-doubt harried organisers probably do pretty well. And anyway, most readers don’t give a rat’s who the judges are – all they want to know is which books won.
Comment by Islander ~ February 4, 2007 10:36 PM
Totally agree with Anonymous's comments re Morrin Rout, Kathy - she's a considerable literary person & my ideal of a good (wide experience/committment to literature) judge who is also a good(doesnt have obscure academic barrows & criteria to push) reader...however, I'm not sure that all us readers just want to know who the winners are: quite a lot of us want to know why - which is what we nearly never ever get-
ISSN #1176-4465. LeafSalon is licensed under a 
