More on the GG Controversy

Michael Bryson on the brouhaha. I hear that there will be more on this on CBC's Q Monday morning.

Some further thoughts on Michael Holmes' interview. One Q&A:

Do you think the fact that Jacob is a young poet is making it easier?

Thank you. There’s definite ageism here. All you have to do is look back - anybody who has talked to me privately about this, I’ve encouraged them to look back over the years at the short list, not only for this jury, but for other juries, other prizes, like the Giller and like the Griffin - and to say ‘Would the same scrutiny have fallen on senior authors?’ And the best example that I know is the Griffin Prize of last year, and three really deserving nominees from Canada, with Nicole Brossard, David McFadden, and Robin Blaser. All of them respected people of Canadian letters. The same issue could be raised there and it wasn’t, and that’s because, I think, Jacob’s an easy target because it’s his first book, because he’s a young man, and because people are afraid to take on those authors with more of a history behind them.

As I keep saying, this is something I've been writing about in one form or another for several years. And I'm not the only one. This year, the story got picked up by a lot of other people. By far too many to just dismiss this as a case of envy, or anger that favourite X or Y wasn't honoured, or the vicious mean-spiritedness of a small handful (or rather large critical mass, as Andre Alexis has pointed out) of blog bullies. I'd not be surprised to find out that Michael considers me a bully. Wouldn't be the first time I've had that mud slung my way. I'd just like to point out that other supposed bullies include such hotheaded curmudgeons as Carleton Wilson, Evie Christie, Susan Glickman and Ian Letourneau. Now, if you've ever met these slavering rabid killers, you'd no doubt agree with Holmes. (I'd say they're some of the nicest folks I've ever met, but then I'd start to sound a bit like Scheier praising Brandt's integrity...) If this isn't who Holmes is talking about--and he's already gone on record saying he's not talking about George Murray--then who are you talking about, Michael? You said 20 or 30.

There are several possible reasons for this story going viral while similar cases died in the water:

A) Michael Holmes is right and Scheier's an easy target, whereas past cases have involved established, respected, revered, etc. poets. There's something to this, but to say it's a simple case of ageism assumes one thing that can be taken for granted only by a small handful of people (including Scheier, Di Brandt and Holmes): that Scheier's book is actually good enough to win this prize. The thing with the other examples cited by Holmes is that it's pretty easy to imagine those other poets being shortlisted by another jury. People are having a very hard time imagining a similar scenario with MTKUW. What I've read of it and read about it suggests to me that this is a very typical first collection, neither particularly ambitious, adventurous or accomplished. Therefore, given the composition of the jury, it's hard to chalk the win up to the usual suspects: reputation; past shuns; career accomplishment; the intrinsic oddities of the jury system. The only factor left to explain it is croneyism.

B) People have been getting progressively more irritated by the way things are run and prizes are awarded and this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Maybe. But it's more like a grand piano than a straw. (See A, above.)

C) None of the interested parties is willing to concede that there might have possibly been an error in judgment, much less unethical conduct. As Andre Alexis said in his Globe and Mail piece, Brandt's brusque dismissal of people's concerns is extremely rude. Scheier's defense of Brandt is mind-bogglingly naive. The Canada Council's repeated insistence that the rules were followed is disingenuous. Michael Holmes' reiterations of these dismissals and denials is the icing on the cake. The result is a highly polarised conflict. Which makes for great copy.

D) The Griffin and Giller Prizes are privately funded and administered. How they run their show is their business. The GG is administered by a publically funded institution. There is certainly a sense that it has to be held to a higher standard of accountability than private institutions. The Giller and Griffin have actively fostered croneyism. They're widely seen as lost causes. The CC has a mandate to avoid favouritism, which is why they tend to compose their juries of people as demographically and aesthetically distinct as they can. This year, they failed especially hard to do so. One juror thanked quietly in the acknowledgments wouldn't have caused a stir. A blurb and two thank yous, one profuse, to a person who helped write at least one poem and has another named after her and who is described by the author as a "mentor" and a "family friend. " Yeah, crazy business thinking the fix was in. Damn cyber bullies.

E) It actually is a blatant case, and not just a matter of slighted poets maundering, so the media have picked it up. As Michael says, people complain about this stuff every year. Not news, then, is it? Yet it is, to judge by the mainstream media coverage. It irks me some that it takes such a boldfaced example to shine a light on the problem, since it has been a problem for a long time, but it's hardly surprising given the obscurity of the art form.

I agree that none of this is the fault either of Jacob Scheier, or of his publisher. It's arguably not Di Brandt's fault either, since the CC did after all allow this to happen. But the total lack of grace with which Scheier, Brandt, and now Holmes have behaved since the controversy broke does nothing whatsoever to win sympathy. All they're doing is yelling "shut up!" over and over. They decry the fact that no one is addressing this book as a work of poetry, but the reason it's not being so treated, the only reason it's being addressed at all, is the mess created by the active favouritism of Di Brandt and the passivity of the Canada Council. Like it or not, Brandt is directly responsible for how this book is being talked about now. If Scheier's work is half as good as she thinks it is, then she owes him an apology for sabotaging its critical reception. (NB: I just turned down a review assignment of MTKUW because, having blogged extensively about this thing and having been labelled, however obliquely, a bully for my efforts, it would look pretty bad if I wound up panning it. My case is a bit special, but the fact is that no one can now write about this book without the spectre of this scandal colouring the review. Even if the elephant in the room is ignored by the reviewer.)

I find it more than a little rich that Michael is decrying the supposedly ad hominem mistreatment of Jacob Scheier and Di Brandt. This is the same guy who called Carmine Starnino an "assclown" in a published interview not that long ago. Moreover, so much of what he's saying in defense of Scheier and Brandt is, in fact, ad hominem; it's stuff to which no one not intimately acquainted with their intertwined personal histories could possibly have access, whereas what's in the acknowledgments page is there for anyone to read. It's part of the published book, not "extra-literary" at all. You can't have it both ways, Michael.