Controversy is swirling around this year's National Book Prize with one publisher describing a decision not to give out the best novel award as "deliberately orchestrated to create a shitstorm".
The jury decided not to award the top prize to any of the three finalists, who had been shortlisted last July from a longlist of 17.
Neither Castillo, by Clare Azzopardi, The Reluctant Healer, by Lou Drofenik, nor Kulħadd Barra Fajża, by John P. Portelli met the standards of the jury, they said.
Kevin Saliba said he and his fellow judges, David Hudson and Slavomir Ceplo, had decided not to award the prize because they had failed to meet a broader scope of criteria they had set in their adjudications.
He explained they had complained to the National Book Council that most of the books they were assessing did not meet the council’s standards.
“We were looking at the wider picture and discussing how the novels would be placed in the international context, whether the novels were good or bad for Malta and how exportable they were. The finalists did not meet our new criteria,” he told Times of Malta.
Mr Saliba claimed that this “upping” of the competition’s standards had been discussed for several years and admitted that their decision not to award the prize this year could set a precedent.
“People will feel we shifted the goalposts but literature is subjective. Judges apply their own criteria in every competition. By doing so, we did not breach the guidelines given to us by the council,” he stressed.
Three novels were shortlisted, but not awarded the best novel prize at the the National Book Awards
Three novels were shortlisted, but not awarded the best novel prize at the the National Book Awards
Three novels were shortlisted, but not awarded the best novel prize at the the National Book Awards
However Chris Gruppetta, director at Merlin Publishers, who published one of the finalists, Castillo said that while he agreed with raising literary standards and criticism, "that doesn’t mean all criticism is necessarily sacred."
In light of the “gratuitous and frankly insulting” comments, he said the "'controversy' was orchestrated to create a shitstorm and to shift the spotlight onto the jury, instead of the books and authors where it should be during a prize ceremony”.
There was a fallout on Friday when statements by the jurors were published by MaltaToday, saying that most of the works were “below par”.
In their report, the jurors said: “Not a single fictional character was poised and independent of its author. The works ranged from pretentious waffle to dispassionate and formulaic texts that are all too repetitive and grizzled.”
Dr Drofenik and Prof. Portelli both told Times of Malta they accepted the judges’ decision.
Portelli said he accepted the judge’s decision, “based on the criteria and procedures established and published by the NBC. Any changes should be made by the Council.”
The Maltese author added that he felt it was not proper for the adjudicators to comment on their decision in public. He said if any statements are to be made, it should be the NBC and in a formal statement.
National Book Council chairman Mark Camilleri said the jurors’ report had been part of a system introduced obliging judges to explain their decision but felt it should be the winner who got the feedback not the runners-up.
Mr Camilleri said the council stood by the judges’ decision and would be discussing the future of the report system today, adding he would also propose a way to stop judges from airing their critiques publicly.