Alex Good is great!

The Gillers are run in much the same way that the mating ritual happens on the Bold and the Beautiful: There are nine people. Many of them are related. Each of those nine characters beds down with all of the other eight at some point.

I agree with a lot of Alex Good’s criticisms (with the exception of his assertion that M.G. Vassanji �can’t write�). Where are the young Canadian writers? Where�s the regional diversity? Why don�t they put publishers from some of the smaller presses on the jury? Or how about some librarians? How about some writers from alternative newspapers and magazines? Or some thinkers (not necessarily academics) who have demonstrated some truly interdisciplinary thinking?

My major problem with the Gillers is that it�s impossible to tell them apart from the GG�s, which kind of makes them pointless. The GG�s are all about the canon, so why not make the Gillers about writers who aren�t in the CanLit canon, or at least not yet? Here are some suggestions:

-Don�t allow someone to win more than once. If you�ve won a Giller, you should never be nominated again. It doesn�t matter how great your next book is.

-Restrict the prize to lesser-known writers: say, someone who has fewer than five published books, or who has never previously been on the Globe & Mail bestseller list.

-Maybe some affirmative action policies are required, so that at least one or two books on the shortlist have to come from small presses.

-Pick at least one �citizen juror� who can be chosen from among interested parties who submit some sort of essay describing their experience reading Canadian literature.

-Why not pick a university student rather than an academic? Universities are crammed with English majors who haven�t yet learned to love pretentious BS over good storytelling.

The Giller, on one level, is a swell party for Jack and his friends. The writers, who rarely say no to acting as props at a rich man’s table, see it as a night to celebrate literature. And so does Jack. Which goes to show you that even fine minds have their limits. Alex Good certainly makes a case against the Giller and its old guard bias. But the Gillers though is not a closed shop. Some misfits do make it into the party. Should it happen more often? You would hope. Good also shows that some editors are not up to the task. How is Vasanji ihelped by the kind of editing he’s received? Clearly some publishers don’t hold themselves to standards of excellence. That’s where Good comes in. It’s the role of critics to hold publishers accountable. We need more of this.

A positive change for the Gillers was the longlist. The best books are inevitably in the longlist…same with the Booker.

Usually I find the Giller choices interesting, but 2008′s list was a letdown.