NZ POST BOOK AWARDS - GROWING DISMAY OVER LENGTH OF FICTION SHORTLIST

After the initial euphoria with the announcement of the overhaul of these book awards, previously long known as the Montana NZ Book Awards, there is a widespread growing sense of unhappiness and dismay over the fact that there is to be a shortlist of only three fiction titles , including anthologies.

We New Zealanders are a pretty polite and reserved bunch who tend to avoid disputes and confrontations, I find this especially so in the book trade. We are such a small, some would say incestuous industry,that people are nervous about expressing strongly held views for fear of upsetting others or potentially disadvantaging themselves in the case of awards.

This is proving to be true over the concern about the reduced fiction shortlist.

To date seven publishers, 12 authors, one librarian and three booksellers have contacted me expressing dismay but when I asked them if I may post their comments on my blog they all declined.

One of the advantages this blog has is that it provides a forum for free and open debate and it has proved useful in this regard on a number of occasions since I set it up three years ago this month.

One publisher who is prepared to let me share his concerns with readers of the blog is Fergus Barrowman, Publisher at Victoria University Press. Never known to shy away from matters that concern him he wrote to the organisers of the NZ Book Awards on this subject. He has now received a reply, with which he is not happy, and he has agreed to let me post this correpondnece on the blog.

Here are the two letters:

Dear Members of the Awards Advisory Committee,

I was very pleased with the new awards structure as outlined in the announcement of 1 September. I think that the reduction in the number of categories and the adoption of a simple pyramid structure will make the awards easier to understand and easier to promote.

However, I am dismayed at some of the details that were withheld from that announcement and only released last Friday. In particular, I believe that the reduction of the fiction shortlist to only three books, especially as anthologies are included (why on earth?), is a serious mistake. A shortlist of three is not big enough to do justice to the quantity, quality and variety of fiction publishing in New Zealand.

We have to take into account the fact that the Posties are not only our premier, but also our ONLY, book award for fiction. In Britain, if a book doesn't make the Booker shortlist, there are still the Costa and Orange Prizes, to mention only the most prominent. In Australia, as well as the Miles Franklin there are the various Premier's Awards. Canada and the USA are similar.

The result of this change is that an unnecessarily large number of deserving books will fail to get any national award recognition. Book award shortlistings are not just about sales; they are also important additions to a writer's CV, and open up future publishing, publicity, performance and grant opportunities.

No reason has been given for the change, but I have heard a suggestion that it will encourage booksellers to "support the shortlist". This of course will not happen; the days of significant blind orders are gone, never to return, and we have to live with the facts that booksellers will make very selective choices about stocking shortlist titles, and that almost all of the sales benefit will go to the winner. Indeed, UK media reports of Booker shortlist sales suggest that on a per capita basis we've not been doing badly! The benefits of the shortlisting process are that it draws attention to a few more books than just the winner, and that it creates a bigger splash for the winner when it is unveiled.

I think it follows, then, that the savage reduction of the fiction shortlist to three books will handicap efforts to generate media coverage. It will reduce the number of promotable authors included in the awards, and the number of angles for media to pursue.

(For the same reason, I was disappointed that the first book shortlists were done away with, although I was prepared on balance to live with that. Has there been a failure to distinguish between those excesses and complexities of the previous structure that hindered its promotion, and the richnesses that fuel publicity? The problem has never simply been "too many books".)

Is it too late for the Awards Advisory Committee to rethink its decision?
Why not four shortlists of five, which has worked perfectly well for the children's book awards? A change now wouldn't affect the submission process, and wouldn't impose any more reading on the judges.

If this organisation is determined to persist, however, then perhaps Creative NZ and the Book Council should withdraw and establish an alternative book award that more adequately serves the interests of the writers and readers who make up the NZ literary community?

Regards,
Fergus

REPLY:

The Awards Advisory Committee discussed the new structure at considerable length, taking into account the submissions made in the process. As you know the committee is representative of the Society of Authors, Publishers, Booksellers Creative New Zealand and the sponsor. I facilitated the last couple of meetings and if my memory serves me, having three finalists for fiction and three for poetry, was not an overly contentious aspect of the final decisions made, which had unanimous support. Clearly all aspects of the new structure will be reviewed after the first year and changes may well be made in light of experience but we would not wish to open up the design process again at this stage.

Regards
Lincoln

Fergus is annoyed at the refusal to explain or discuss, because he can't see any reason why it's too late to rescue the situation.

Now come on booksellers, readers, librarians, publishers and authors if you feel strongly about this then have your say now or forever hold your peace.We do need to get this right first time round so that future comparisons of shortlists and winners are fair, and we owe it to the sponsors too.

If you feel that you for professional reasons you cannot put your name to your comment then on this issue, I am prepared to accept anonymous comments, provided they are not personal or libellous!

I look forward to hearing from you.