With the shortlist for the NZ Post Book Awards still being wrung out and pegged on the line by writers and readers around the country, Renee Liang (left) popped into my mind.
Why? Well there's a groundswell of dissatisfaction about the list of only three books for both the fiction and poetry awards. Five, why can't there be five? That way more books would get their time in the sun; and for the same reason, many of us would also like to see a shortlist for the Best First Book Awards rather than one outright winner for each.
Footnote from The Bookman:
I totally agree with Mary re the size of the fiction and poetry short-lists and have written, some would say endlessly, about it on the blog but as a friend of mine said to me over the weekend -
"The Book Awards are fast becoming the Wellywood sign of the book world - the only people who want them in their present form are the administrators".
7 comments:
Keep it up - we have wonderful novelists in New Zealand - we should celebrate more of them - after all if there aren't 5 worthy of finalising then the judges have the option to say so!!
Bookbrainz
it is also quite shameful that the recent LIANZA short list has not appeared in any print media. Thank goodness for you, Bookman, for letting the world know about the finalist. To be selected by librarians is a huge pat on the back.
According to the figures I have obtained [they are approximate] excluding children's titles 75% of the books published in NZ are non fiction and 25% fiction and poetry.
The book awards have short lists which are 62.5% non fiction and 37.5% fiction and poetry.This to me seems eminently fair and reasonable.
I found the previous format to be confusing and unwieldy with so many books shortlisted it wasn't a short list but a longlist.
I also find it difficult to understand why there is this constant harping on about the length of the shortlists.
The judges have already made up their mind that the winner will come from the shortlist so extending it to will make no difference to the final result.
Perhaps the solution would be to publish the full list of nominations for the awards so that all nominated titles and authors could have their day in the sun.
Perhaps we should abolish winners altogether so no-one feels ignored or overlooked !!
That argument misses the point a little. One of the difficulties in the NZ book industry, as I understand it, is that we have to compete against much larger marketing budgets from overseas publishers. The book awards seem to be a brilliant opportunity to highlight what was good in New Zealand writing in the past year. I have heard a publisher say 'there won't be any overseas interest unless it gets nominated for an award', which may not be totally true, but the point is valid - it is difficult to get a wider audience for a New Zealand book. So why be narrow and shortsighted? What would it cost anyone to have a slightly longer list (like international prizes!) And give new writers a shortlist, for goodness sake. Otherwise these awards are not nurturing or promoting the creative energy that goes into these things (obviously, in NZ, there's no money to be made).
I don't think Roger Slater misses the point at all.
The longer a shortlist is the more it seems to be ignored and hence the reason for the drastic cut back in the number of shortlisted titles both fiction and non fiction.
And unfortunately the Neilson figures for book sales of short listed titles indicate it does virtually nothing for the sales of a title.
Only the winners seem to benefit.
And Graeme I am disturbed by two comments here by anonymous contributors.
Shouldn't as previously stated all anonymous comments be refused publication.
Jeff - several things:
1.You have known me for over 40 years, don't you think it is time you started spelling my name correctly?
2.Generally I allow anon comments provided they are not malicious, unkind, unfair etc or don't come from an obviously vested interest.I decide on a case by case basis.There are many you never see.
3.I follow book awards around the world and almost all of them have short-lists of five or more.
Say what you like three is obviously inadequate. After all even the book that won the coveted Commonwealth Writers Prize, against huge international opposition, A Man Melting, couldn't make this short-list.
Hi Graham,
Three things.
Firstly apologies for not spelling your name correctly.The problem is mental incapacity..
Secondly my age.I agree I might be fraying around the edges but I did not meet you when I was 21 as I would have been if I met you 40 years ago.I have only been in the book trade for 27 years though it must seem like a lifetime to some.
Thirdly I took my lead on the anonymity issue from your comment on an earlier blog as follows:
"
Anonymous said...
Graham
What's the fuss? Nonfiction used to have all these categories:
History
Biography
Environment
Lifestyle and Contemporary Culture
Illustrative
Reference and Anthology
Now they've been squeezed down to 2 categories with history, biography, science and reference writers all competing for 5 berths in the non-illustrative category.
Seems that if anyone's takena hit, it's the nonfiction crowd....
4:43 PM
Bookman Beattie said...
Not relevant, they are merely categories within non-fiction. You could have categories within fiction too if you wished - romance, historical, crime, thriller, literary, faction, short stories, etc etc. There were clearly too many categories for non-fiction before and that need tightening up which was done but come on three shortlisted titles for all that fiction we publish.
And put your name on your next comment or it will not be published.
This anonymous comment didn't appear to me to be malicious unkind or unfair.
Personally though I think if people want to comment they should not be anonymous.
Post a Comment