Crikey, the crapola has hit the fan over the Montana shortlist this year. It usually does. But first: LeafSalon’s heartiest congratulations to all the shortlisted authors, especially Mary McCallum, LeafSalon erstwhile guest blogger extraordinaire!
The biggest moan this year is that there’s only four on the fiction shortlist when there’s usually five. (And shock, horror – they’re all women – a coincidental turnaround from last year, when they were all fullas.) Lynn Freeman, convenor of judges, has defended the controversial shortlist by intimating that the four top books were of an order of merit well above the rest of the 35 entries. This is of course a decision which is up to them as judges (and as judges go –universally maligned, thankless and foolhardy – in my opinion they are pretty damned well-qualified ones).
If I were judging, and was of the passionate opinion that four books stood out well above the rest, I can imagine that I may not want to ‘dilute’ the golden perfection of the all-important ‘Montana Shortlisted’ sticker. I sure as hell don’t think that awards should be given merely to boost sales, even in our frail literary economy.
But if I were a bookseller or publisher, or most certainly an author, I can imagine that a decision to close the shortlist at four could start with being described as pompous and work its way through infuriating all the way through to downright unpatriotic, a measure bound to dilute nothing but sales in a small and desperate market.
As I am neither judge nor any other interested party, but merely a reader, I’m at a bit of a loss to understand why books such as Owen Marshall’s Drybread (masterful), Louise Wareham-Leonard’s Miss Me A Lot Of (edgy), Damien Wilkins’ For Everyone Concerned (tender) or Elizabeth Knox’s Dreamquake (a word fails me) could not have been added to the list. These were four other books I really, really loved last year.
Of course, Janet Frame’s posthumous novel has been excluded, as was Nigel Cox’s collection of writings, because of the new ruling that only living writers may take part in the awards. Also controversial. I have to agree on one level – when Frame’s The Goose Bath won the poetry prize last year it seemed… odd in some way. Deserved, yes, but hard, when there are so many live poets who deserve to be shouted from the rooftops. But again, are we getting commerce confused with excellence?
A second moan is – why not have a best first book shortlist? We’ll never know – two of the main fiction shortlist were first books (The Blue and Luminous), and there were several others last year which could have made the grade. These two amazing books do deserve to go in at the top however, and I don’t suppose they could be shortlisted in both categories. And I’m at a loss to understand this statement from the Booksellers media release: “There are no Best First Book finalists in these categories this year, but winners will be announced at the Montana New Zealand Book Awards on 21 July.” It’s a headscratcher.
Moan number three: poetry misses. Three superb offerings, to be sure, but how about C K Stead, Paula Green, Andrew Johnston, Elizabeth Smither? The judges did say that it was torturous coming to a shortlist of three for the poetry, but if they can fiddle with the fiction shortlist, why not fiddle with the poetry, and extend it? Lord know the genre can do with a boost in the ratings. Oops, there I go again. Ker-ching!
Well, that’s the moaning done. No doubt the poor judges will staunchly ignore all further such whinges and go to ground until awards night, and if they have any sense, will stay there even then. As Bookman Beattie says, these could well be the most controversial Montanas for a good few years, and they won’t want rotten tomatoes all over their formals. And as one of his readers says, heaven forbid that there should be any disagreeable public discourse about the awards to get it all out in the open beforehand.
I must say, on a final, positive note that the rest of the list is stunning. Great to see Martin Edmond in there, although he’s rather bemused by Waimarino County’s category listing (biography). As for the remainder of the non-fiction lists, I’ll have my money on the Southern Alps book, Aberhard, Mau Moko and A Nest of Singing Birds.
Looking over the listing from my Sydney perspective, it makes me proud to be a Koiwoi. What a supremely talented bunch, both on the list and off. Mind you, I have just finished Tim Winton’s latest work of genius, Breath, but whew – that’s another story.
11 Jun 08 | Filed by Kathy | Add your comment (14 so far)
If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email.
Comment by Chris ~ June 11, 2008 07:09 AM
Two corrections to the post, Kathy. First, Luminous is Alice Tawhai's second book not the first. Second, as I understand it, the rule excluding dead authors is not new. The rules were changed for the 2007 awards to allow dead authors, hence Janet Frame's win in the poetry, and were changed back again for this year.
Comment by Kathy ~ June 11, 2008 09:33 AM
Oops, thanks Chris. Post in haste, repent at leisure. You're dead right. In retrospect, we should have made much more of a fuss last year about Janet. That was kind of outrageous.
Comment by maggie ~ June 11, 2008 10:46 AM
Ah Kathy, and Chris, it's good to have a couple of voices from across the Tasman. What a little literary pool we inhabit here - but if the Judges are right, it is either an exceptionally talented literary pool (that's the best scenario), or, it is a very weak pool and only four were good enough to stick their heads above water.
But, what can we say, but huge congratulations to “our” Mary (McCallum), to Alice Tawhai, Laurence Fearnley and Charlotte Grimshaw - the only one of which I haven't yet read, being Laurence Fearnley, but I shall rectify that and I'm a big fan of both Charlotte and Alice as well.
It seems to me that blogs are a great way to let the steam off and let people have a say, but let us not detract from the winners and their outstanding achievements.
I'm one of those writers who published a novel last year and it is interesting to read a bookseller and a publisher lamenting the loss of sales to the imaginiary “fifth” book - what about all of us other losers (possibly not even nominated) whose babies only get a short moment in the sun?
Of course we have to have winners who inspire us to achieve - and that is what this is about.
A fifth book surely could have been 'Drybread' or, Sarah Laing's debut short story collection.
It looks as if Mary's book, being the only “first” novel is perhaps a stand-out winner of the best first novel, and so there is no point in having a short list if she is already the winner by default (clever girl) being in the real finals list. So, whichever way it goes, she should be a winner (perhaps twice over)….
Well, I for one am green with envy, but salute her achievements.
Comment by PJKM ~ June 11, 2008 11:29 AM
Mary's novel HAS to win Best First Book of Fiction, as Rachael pointed out on one of the message boards, hence the absence of a shortlist. (Congratulations to Mary, by the way.)
I don't know how discussing this issue detracts from the shortlisted books in any way. The criticism seems to be directed at the judges, who were supposed to select the five best works of fiction for the year for the shortlist - and did not.
Comment by FredP ~ June 11, 2008 05:10 PM
Hi Chris and Kathy
Commenting on the comment - The rules were changed for the 2007 awards to allow dead authors, hence Janet Frame's win in the poetry, and were changed back again for this year.
I think the case is that authors who have been dead less than 2 years have always been able to have their books submitted and that has now changed to allow no dead authors. I don't recall any special rules being bent in favour of Janet Frame. FredP
Comment by Pamela ~ June 12, 2008 04:03 PM
A correction is due here. If the Montana rules were changed in 2007 to allow dead authors, it was nothing to do with Janet Frame. The Montana rules have always allowed for the entry of a book published within 2 years following the author's death, and Janet Frame's The Goose Bath (2006) already qualified because of that (she died in 2004). So the 2007 change did not affect her eligibility, nor that of Nigel Cox, who also won prize money.
In fact since 2004 at least three dead authors have collected Montana prize money so it seems unfair to me to single out and criticise Frame's win (which in my opinion was a well justified and long overdue recognition of her extraordonary gifts as a poet.) Her prize money went to her charitable trust which added the amount to a grant given to the NZSA.
As for the fiction shortlist - Frame's Estate and her publishers had no intention of submitting the posthumous novel for the fiction prize. Towards Another Summer was written long ago and was not in the production pipeline when she died. But she was working on the poetry project at the time of her death, and had authorised the edit and written the poems, and her book qualified under long standing rules.
Comment by Rachael King ~ June 15, 2008 01:00 PM
Any reason I can't see a link to the forum on this page anymore? Anybody else have that problem?
Comment by Chris ~ June 16, 2008 01:50 AM
Well spotted on the links bar on the right - we had a server glitch which I've now fixed.
Chris
Comment by Islander ~ June 20, 2008 09:58 PM
the Forum has fallen down-
Comment by Kathy ~ June 20, 2008 10:56 PM
Yup - sommat wrong wi't site all right. Sorry, but Chris is the techno guru here and he's away until Monday - in the South of France, the dorty basturt. Hope you can all hold out until then. Practice your accents while you're waiting?
Comment by Eleanor ~ June 21, 2008 02:47 PM
You people were featured in the Listener today. At least Kerre Hulme and Bookman Beattie were quoted.
The complaining is getting out of hand, really. The Montanas are supposed to recognise exellence in NZ literature, they are not an advertising company that wants so sell as many books as possible regardless of quality.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is getting annoying the way everyone seems to think that it's their DUTY to nominate those books even if they didn't really think them up to it. Maybe the books were good, maybe they weren't, but the Montana people have made their decision and they should stick to their integrity.
Comment by Islander ~ June 22, 2008 06:18 PM
Booksellers NZ run the Montanas- Eleanor, are you a wee bit slow on the ramifications?
And WTF reads the Listener these days?
Comment by Chris H ~ June 22, 2008 11:00 PM
“Sounds a bit harsh” if folks want to talk about who made the list and who didn't?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure I've read media and blog coverage of other awards - such as the Oscars, the Grammys and even Pop Idol.
But of course our precious Montanas are different, and we should all keep our mouths shut. And bow down to the all-encompassing knowledge and wisdom of the huge numbers of highly qualified judges involved.
Comment by Mark Hubbard ~ June 23, 2008 09:45 AM
I didn't know this forum was still going :) Has the 'other site' disappeared for good, or is that just a technical glitch?
Of course the Montanas should be debated: that's just healthy and inevitable given the diverse nature of artistic endeavour, and the subjectivity involved.
And good luck to Mary. (I must Google when the awards are to be announced). Does anyone have a link to the original 35 entries in the fiction category?
ISSN #1176-4465. LeafSalon is licensed under a 
