Scotiabank Giller 2010 Prize Shortlist

[SensualPoet]

2010 Giller Prize Longlist
The 2010 Scotiabank Giller Prize jury announced its longlist on Monday, September 20. This is the 17th year of the prize and the second year that the prize has featured two non-Canadians as jurors. The jury panel - Canadian broadcaster and journalist Michael Enright, American author and professor Claire Messud, and award-winning UK writer Ali Smith – chose 13 titles out of nearly 100 books.

The jury read solidly for almost six months as submission after submission made its way to the UK (Ali), Cambridge, Mass., then Berlin (Claire) and Toronto as well as a small Newfoundland fishing village Michael calls home during the summer. Conference calls were held, books were read and re-read, e-mails flew back and forth.

Go here to see the longlist.

The short list contains five finalists:

The Matter with Morris by David Bergen
Phyllis Bruce Books/HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.
Jury citation (excerpt): David Bergen's most accomplished novel yet is an unforgettable story with a vitality and charm and intelligence all its own. Bergen proves once again that he is one of our finest writers, dazzling us with his wit and touching us with his compassion.

Available as an ebook from: kobobooks amazon sony


Light Lifting by Alexander MacLeod
Biblioasis
Jury citation (excerpt): Alexander MacLeod’s debut story collection ... are a careful marriage of the lyric and the narrative: each unfolds around a resonant, ineffable moment, replete with history and emotion, a Gordian knot comprised of all the strands that lead up to and away from it. Sensitive and subtle, MacLeod is a writer through whose deliberately partial and quotidian pieces shimmers life’s unspoken complexity.

Available as an ebook from: kobobooks amazon sony


This Cake is for the Party by Sarah Selecky
Thomas Allen Publishers
Jury citation (excerpt): Story after story in this resonant and quietly apocalyptic collection deliver a sharp analysis of contemporary surreality and the madness of modern homogeneity. Its stories are tender, broken, deceptively unassuming then unexpectedly breathtaking. It holds its delicate oppositions - numbness and understanding, smartness and tragedy - with discipline and flair, and marks the arrival of a gifted writer.

Available as an ebook from: kobobooks amazon sony


The Sentimentalists by Johanna Skibsrud
Gaspereau Press
Jury citation: The Sentimentalists charts the painful search by a dutiful daughter to learn - and more importantly, to learn to understand - the multi-layered truth which lies at the moral core of her dying father’s life. Something happened to Napoleon Haskell during his tour of duty in Vietnam that changed his life and haunted the rest of his days. At the behest of his daughters, he moves from a trailer in North Dakota to a small lakeside town in Ontario where his family can only watch as his past slips away in a descending fog of senility. The writing here is trip-wire taut as the exploration of guilt, family and duty unfolds.

Available as an ebook from: kobobooks amazon sony


Annabel by Kathleen Winter
House of Anansi Press
Jury citation (excerpt): "Annabel" is a beautifully told, fully-realized tale of a mysterious child gifted or cursed by a rare condition at birth. Though his name is Wayne, he is neither fully boy nor girl. ... An examination of human nature abounding with insight into the nature of gender, the spare, elegant prose compels the reader to engage utterly with the material. It is a startling first novel that is by turn touching, inventive and ultimately brave.

Available as an ebook from: kobobooks amazon sony

A pity so few of the titles are available as e-books; and most aren't even in print in the US, at least based on amazon.com.

A live televised gala event from the Toronto Four Seasons Hotel, will be held Tue Nov 9 on Bravo and CTV to announce the winner.

UPDATED: All five titles on the shortlist are now available as e-books; I have updated the kobobooks links.

[taming]

I have wanted to read Johanna Skibsrud 's book--but not only is it not available as an eBook, the only version on the Chapter's site is $91. I'm guessing we will have paper versions available at some point. The Matter with Morris is less expensive (by quite a bit) as a Kobo eBook than it is in paper.

[SensualPoet]

Yes, a little sad, to be sure: only two of five entries available as an e-book.

Skibsrud's poetry book is even "out-of-print" as a physical thing and the publisher notes in its blog that they are scrambling to do a reprint. They also add:

(And yes, for those indifferent to the physical world, we'll see about getting something out there for your ephemeral e-reader devices. When your eyes bug out, your thumbs drop off and your battery dies, we'd also be happy to sell you a real book.)

*sigh*

[ATDrake]

Well, that quote certainly encourages me to want to buy their books. In the Voltaire-ian sense of "encourage", involving the disposal of admirals.

Also, I'm mildly disturbed by in-name corporate hijacking of literary prizes. Simple sponsorship is one thing, but what next? The McDonalds-Pulitzer?

Unless this was created as the "Scotiabank Giller Prize" to begin with. In which case I question the taste and sense of appropriateness of the corporate sponsor's PR department. And I say this as someone with a Scotiabank account.

[Logseman]

I've left a small protest note as I couldn't bear to see that rudeness uncontested:

I deeply despise your offensive "footnote" towards those who do have electronic book readers. In particular, because there are hundreds of people with bugged out eyes (aka sight problems) and achy fingers (due to illnesses like arthritis) who who would have had to give up the pleasure of reading if they had to resort only to "real books" instead of having the opportunity to use "ephemeral e-readers".

[taming]

Originally Posted by Logseman

I've left a small protest note as I couldn't bear to see that rudeness uncontested:

Thank you for doing that--I am one of the people you referenced in your note. I left one as well.

[Logseman]

I think leaving the link of the offending entry will be a good idea:
http://gaspereaupress.blogspot.com/2...ng-closer.html

[SensualPoet]

Originally Posted by ATDrake

Also, I'm mildly disturbed by in-name corporate hijacking of literary prizes. Simple sponsorship is one thing, but what next? The McDonalds-Pulitzer?

Unless this was created as the "Scotiabank Giller Prize" to begin with. In which case I question the taste and sense of appropriateness of the corporate sponsor's PR department. And I say this as someone with a Scotiabank account.

I am less put out. Scotiabank -- I am a retail customer and have no other connection -- are true partners of cultural organisations they support. They don't just write cheques: their organisation and reputation are put on the line to ensure the event / festival is successful. Scotiabank has been associated with the Giller prize since 2005.

Another example is the Scotiabank Northern Lights Music Festival six evenings of classical and jazz concerts for young musicians and seasoned professionals get together over a two week period for intense study and professional development. The location is Guadalajara, Mexico and the young musicians are local, the whole thing backed by Scotiabank as lead sponsor. http://2010northernlightsmusic.blogspot.com/

If some naming rights go along with this level of multi-year commitment and corporate energy, I am all for that. Too many corporations just write the cheque and show up for a gala; Scotiabank picks its sponsorships carefully and becomes a true long-term partner.

The alternative is a bunch of government bureaucrats in Ottawa paid vast government salaries to hand out tax payer grants to their buddies. No thanks.

At least, that's the way it appears to me as an everyday consumer.

[ATDrake]

Originally Posted by SensualPoet

The alternative is a bunch of government bureaucrats in Ottawa paid vast government salaries to hand out tax payer grants to their buddies.

They do that already. Just not for the arts. Because public funding for cultural stuff is "elite". Why, all that money could go to building fake lakes and "security" fences that don't even last a week and buying the first set of fighter jets one sees for a mere $9 billion, instead of shopping around for lower bids!

Originally Posted by SensualPoet

If some naming rights go along with this level of multi-year commitment and corporate energy, I am all for that. Too many corporations just write the cheque and show up for a gala; Scotiabank picks its sponsorships carefully and becomes a true long-term partner.

While it's nice that they're ponying up the cash and seem to mean their patronage, I have to admit it just bugs me in the same way that PBS' "ExxonMobil Masterpiece Theatre" does.

Makes it look like they're trying to piggyback on the name of a respected institution in order to try and make people forget about oil spills, or being sued by overseas banks for financial shenanigans, or otherwise sanitizing their image at someone else's expense.

I think I liked it better when patrons sponsored stuff, but let their names be praised in conjunction with funding the ensuing results, and not as part of them.

I suppose the future will be performances of Mozart & Varesco's Karl Theodor Idomeneo, King of Crete.

[SensualPoet]

There is an argument, of course, to be made for the reverse: the reputation a corporation can bring to the arts or social event is a plus for the local organisation rather than merely basking in the event's cachet. Tim Horton's Summer Camps for Kids probably raises more money for the project thanks to Tim Horton's patronage than not. I dare say Scotiabank Nuit Blanche festival, in conjunction with the City of Toronto, attracts more interest because of their reputation and sponsorship of other cultural events.

If I am hearing you correctly, you are more concerned about a corporation co-opting an already established event than starting one from scratch? Hence your example of "McDonald's Pulitzer Prize"? I would argue, if that's the case, that something like the Giller prize might simply disappear and a "naming right" which is accompanied by full-throated commitment is a small price to pay not for survival but to thrive.

(Although I have to say the shortlist for the Giller this year seems singularly bleak viewed from a number of different facets. I doubt if Scotiabank is to blame.)

[ATDrake]

I don't care if corporations want to make up their own events/prizes/charities/whatever.

Ronald McDonald Children's Hospital is fine by me as long as they keep funding it and hopefully have enough sense not to feed sick kids their un-nutritious fast food and stick to handing out the happy meal toys and decorating the rooms à la Hamburglar and friends. The US got some of their best artistic venues (Carnegie Hall, etc.) that way from turn-of-the-century railroad robber barons and other such nouveau riche magnates who were socially pressured into funding stuff if they wanted to fit in with the existing upper class.

But no, I don't like it when a corporation appears to visibly parasitize an existing established thing in order to get their own name out.

If "this program was paid for by a generous grant from the XXY Foundation, the YYZ Foundation, and Viewers Like You" was good enough for umpteen years, then why does "Masterpiece Theatre" now need to be "ExxonMobil Masterpiece Theatre"? It looks like a crass attempt to get the public thinking that ExxonMobil has been behind Masterpiece Theatre all along. And what happens when ExxonMobil's PR department starts thinking that Masterpiece Theatre no longer appeals to their desired demographic and goes shopping around for another venue?

The Giller Prize has apparently existed for 17 years. Scotiabank has been sponsoring it since 2005. Maybe they'll keep it up for the next 17 years, maybe one day they'll decide to cut their losses and run. I just don't think it's a good idea to rename the prize for a mere 5 years' funding infusion unless Scotiabank really intends on ponying up all the dough in perpetuity and essentially co-running the thing to boot.

I'm pleased with corporations funding existing cultural/charity stuff instead of hoarding all their money except where tax-deductible, and perfectly fine with getting their names put in very prominently as sponsor, but not taking over the "brand". It actually makes me think worse of them for pressuring the original to "sell out", which is probably the reverse of what's intended.

Something like "The 2010 Giller Prize, made possible by a generous grant from our partner Scotiabank", would be far preferable to "Scotiabank Giller 2010 Prize", in my opinion.

As for literary prize bleakness, that's par for the course. The Hugo Award nominees this year were mainly for really depressing stuff which all starts to look the same after awhile. There seems to be a meme going around that the more of a downer the read is, the more "worthy" it is.

Except for those books where it's a downer with an "uplifting" message about how human suffering and tragedy lead to self-realization and happiness. Eventually. At the very end. In the last five pages or so.

Bet on those to be the prizewinners and/or end up on Oprah's Book Club.

[SensualPoet]

Originally Posted by ATDrake

As for literary prize bleakness, that's par for the course. The Hugo Award nominees this year were mainly for really depressing stuff which all starts to look the same after awhile. There seems to be a meme going around that the more of a downer the read is, the more "worthy" it is.

There's a bright light this year, then. At least one of the five titles is actually out of print, 60% aren't available as e-books and none of them, even if they happen to be in print, are sold outside Canada. We can continue to export wheat and oil (crude and canola), but thankfully keep our literary misery to ourselves.

[simplyparticular]

Originally Posted by ATDrake

But no, I don't like it when a corporation appears to visibly parasitize an existing established thing in order to get their own name out.

If "this program was paid for by a generous grant from the XXY Foundation, the YYZ Foundation, and Viewers Like You" was good enough for umpteen years, then why does "Masterpiece Theatre" now need to be "ExxonMobil Masterpiece Theatre"? It looks like a crass attempt to get the public thinking that ExxonMobil has been behind Masterpiece Theatre all along. And what happens when ExxonMobil's PR department starts thinking that Masterpiece Theatre no longer appeals to their desired demographic and goes shopping around for another venue?

You're about 8 years behind the times and factually incorrect.

Production of Masterpiece was always fully funded by Mobil, from its inception in the 1970s. It didn't get the moniker Exxon Mobil Masterpiece Theatre until after the merger, probably as an attempt to rebrand.

Exxon Mobil decided Masterpiece wasn't their demographic anymore in 2002 (certainly wasn't because they couldn't afford it!) - the final programs that they had funded aired in 2004. Their name was removed at that time. No one else has stepped up, and PBS doesn't have the money to fund everything anymore so it merged Mystery! and Masterpiece Theatre into one program, called simply Masterpiece, and then divided the year up into genres: Masterpiece Classic, Masterpiece Contemporary, Masterpiece Mystery! that air at different time of year. There is a lot less to watch now

Details here:
Masterpiece (wikipedia)
and here:
Exxon Mobil ends 32 year sponsorship

The big difference is that corporations and foundations used to fund the PRODUCTION of a program, and then local stations paid for the promotion, etc. Thanks to the Wall Street criminals, foundation sponsorship of any charity is minimal these days since their capital was decimated. Corporate sponsorship of PBS (and probably NPR) is now almost exclusively at the spot and local level, NOT the production level, just like commercial TV. The difference is the fine line between what the FCC calls sponsorships vs. commercials.

So when you feel like your PBS station is airing a lot of the same stuff over and over, that's all they've got now. And if they're pledging more, its because corporate and foundations sponsorship are half what they were 3 years ago.

The Los Angeles station announced last week they are dropping out of PBS, because they can't afford their share of the dues to pay for the national programs.

[ATDrake]

Thanks for the correction. I'm in Canada and we cancelled our cable awhile ago, so I don't really keep up with what's going on with PBS, aside from getting the occasional DVD (I think that's where I got the ExxonMobil Masterpiece Theatre thing; some of them still seem to have that part, if I recall correctly).

That said, I think I still prefer when corporations stick to just the sponsorship credit and not the name rebranding, even if they have been effectively fully funding stuff. The Masterpiece Classic/Contemporary thing just kind of emphasizes how awkward it can get when the co-named sponsorship goes away.

[taming]

All five of the books on ScotiaBank Giller Prize shortlist are now available on the Canadian Kobobooks.com: http://www.kobobooks.com/lists/Gille...7OCFRuA-1.html