|
|
|
Writers as Judges - Conflict of Interest The children's book awards: can they be relied upon to promote quality children's literature? The answer is no - given the cronyism of our writers' circles and the inappropriate use of writers as judges. The world of children's writing has for some time now been in the hands of those using it for propaganda purposes - to push their own theories about teenage sex, rebellion, homosexuality and lesbianism down the throats of young readers whose childhood has been rapidly taken away from there. There has been an overwhelming emphasis on books dealing with youngsters' supposed problems, in an increasingly permissive society. J.K. Rowling bucked the trend by trawling back among children's favourite writers in the past - Enid Blyton, Angela Brazil, Richmal Crompton, and others - to reinvoke the world of adventures and fun. Her writing is largely not original, but it courageously bucks the politically correct emphasis on sex, violence, broken families, teen problems that our New Zealand writers are still wallowing in. Moreover the pool of judges is too small. Writers should not be sitting in judgement on other writers with whom they are in competition - as with William Taylor and Glenn Colquhoun, judges of 2002 Evening Post Children's Book Awards. The question of conflict of interest arises. Moreover, all the in-group writers know , or know of, like, or dislike, one another. William Taylor, judge, and Tessa Duder, shortlisted by Taylor and his fellow judges for the senior award, had actually previously co-written a book together. The inevitable perception is that of insider territory. Moreover, judges tend to choose writers who write like themselves. They don’t tend to favour whose writing is better: it makes them feel threatened. Quality is not a likely outcome. Moreover, add in the token celebrity, like Cath Tizard, in 2002 - individuals with no background at all in literary criticism - and the results are only too obvious. Not only do the same, by no means inspirational, writers get placed each year - even when their writing is mediocre - but the winning books are not necessarily those with which parents would feel comfortable. For example, a letter to The Nelson Mail recently raised concern about the children's awards this year, questioning the suitability of the winner of The Evening Post Children's Book of the Year, by Lloyd Spencer Davis, The Plight of the Penguin. Passages the letter-writer objected to include; "penguins are no less prone than us to relationship break-ups, a quick one on the side, or sexual perversion." "Seals bully other males out of their fornicating ways". "Male penguins try to copulate with toy penguins." "Males fire sperm all over the place, and over the female." "After two weeks of unadulterated sex and adultery..." etc. The writer is right to ask the following questions (and received support from other correspondents on this issue, while educationists such as Trevor Mallard - should we be surprised? - unreservedly rhapsodised over the prize winner). But as the troubled correspondent asked: "Is such a book suitable for our kids? No wonder our youth get more corrupted and violent. " If books are pushed at youngsters that that are utterly unsuitable for the world of childhood, essentially boring or subversive books, books that propagandise vulnerable children towards homosexual and lesbian "norms" to which their authors are themselves inclined, it is high time for Creative New Zealand, Booksellers New Zealand, and the New Zealand Book Council to examine their responsibilities in this area. What is going to be done about tackling the cronyism of writers' circles, about selective, discriminatory and unfair reviewing, about the inappropriate use of writers judging other writers - and using unqualified "celebrities"? If these issues can't be honestly tackled, the sooner the awards are abolished the better. The public should be left - not misled - to make its own decisions.
|
