Juror Rabindranath Maharaj told Q&Q: “I believe what these writers have done and what they’re doing is they’re very quietly innovative without drawing attention to their innovation. And they’re innovative in the sense that their books are more accessible – it’s more reader-friendly in many ways…. The elements of good storytelling are still there.”

Three responses to that, that go beyond “What the heck?”

(1) Being innovative now means making books “more accessible.” This sounds like pandering to consumerism, as opposed to presenting art works of a quality that make a reader engage with them. Literary fiction is not meant to be on the same level as the Potter or other ‘conglomerature’ books. Its task is to open our minds, change our ways of thinking, encourage the questioning of authority, disturb us, or be as revolutionary as possible.

(2) “The elements of good storytelling are still there.” Is Maharaj apologizing for innovative works that do more than, or something other than, tell stories? Or is he trying to assure potential readers that despite his use of the label “innovative” the books can still be understood, that they’re not frightening, that they’re innovation-lite?

(3) Would it be unruly (and therefore un-canadian) for a writer (of short stories, novels, plays, poems, whatever) to “draw attention to their innovation”? In these tumultuous times, which a country’s literature can choose to reflect (and it’s not a duty), wouldn’t being brash or aggressive or assertive be a fair response on the spectrum of responses?

Jeff Bursey
author of
_Verbatim: A Novel_

I’ve read one of the books on the list and it’s not innovative in any way. That being said, thank you, Jeff, for letting us know what the task of literature is. Now we all know what our job is. Seems I had it wrong all this time.

Michel, hello. Thanks for your comments.

I spoke of literary fiction, a subset of literature. Literature–entertainments, most spy novels or crime thrillers, biographies, dictionaries, newspapers, tracts, etc.–isn’t what I’m talking about.

Writing literary fiction, and about it, is one thing I do, and my opinions are just that. I regard it as a vocation, and like to aim for as high a bar–the bar I see–as possible. Others can certainly view it as a job and, armed with their own opinions, aim for whatever they want. There’ll be disagreement, but what’s wrong with that, if it’s friendly?

Now, what do you think of Maharaj’s comments? I’m sincerely interested in hearing your opinion on them.

Jeff Bursey
author of
_Verbatim: A Novel_

I disagree with both of you. (Whenever someone tells me what Literature is supposed to be or do, I reach for my gun. Although mostly I just leave it there and move on.)

Maharaj seems to be apologizing for books that people might actually enjoy; you seem to suggest that alone makes them less than Literature. To both of you I say, it is what it is. It is not required to fit your expectations.

There’s nothing here to debate: a bunch of books got nominated. Turns out they’re enjoyable. Maybe that’s the problem?

By the way, most people would say “a subset of literature” is usually called a genre.

Michel, you confuse my use of the term “literary fiction” with “Literature” in the first and second paragraphs of your response. Literature is _your_ word. If you think I was telling you what Literature is supposed to do or be, then you’ve misread me.

As for “nothing here to debate,” with that remark you diminish, and dismiss, part of your first post. Saying “I’ve read one of the books on the list and it’s not innovative in any way” is a comment worthy of debate. I’d have welcomed an elaboration, but there you go.

Jeff Bursey
author of
_Verbatim: A Novel_

Oh dear, oh deaar, oh dear…