They announced the shortlist for the Poetry Book Society's T.S.Eliot Prize for Poetry on 20 October -- and on the same day introduced Aurum - the new supporter of the T.S.Eliot Prize.
It took a while to sink in, but now the shortlisted authors are dropping (out) like flies: first Alice Oswald withdrew her collection from consideration, and now John Kinsella doesn't want to be part of it any more either; see, for example, Benedicte Page's report in The Bookseller Kinsella joins Oswald in withdrawing from T S Eliot Award.
[As always, I must here interject my usual prize objection: authors should have no say whatsoever whether or not their books are considered for a prize, and they certainly shouldn't be allowed to withdraw them from consideration (or ask their publishers not to submit them in the first place). Book prizes are about the books, not the authors, and prizes should try to honor the best book, regardless of whether the author wants them to or not; if an author chooses to decline the prize once it's been awarded, that's fine -- they don't have to take the dirty money or trophy or diploma or whatever goes with the award -- but that's as far as their involvement should go. (That goes for author prizes, too, of course -- Sartre's Nobel is the perfect example.)]
At issue is the new 'sponsor', "specialist asset manager" (i.e. ultra-capitalist (or rather: system-taking-advantage-of) pigs) Aurum. What exactly their sponsorship involves is not made clear at the Poetry Book Society site (bad form) -- the press release gives no clue about how much money is involved, or even to what use it might be put -- even referring still to: "Mrs Valerie Eliot, who has generously donated the prize money since the inception of the Prize" -- though it does helpfully note (and this is presumably what set Oswald and Kinsella off):
Certainly, the Poetry Book Society should be more forthcoming about what exactly Aurum have bought (or are paying for) with their sponsorship -- instead, there's no mention whatsoever of the supposed sponsors at the main T S Eliot Prize for Poetry page -- and there is the claim that:
In The Independent John Walsh argues in an opinion piece that Without Aurum's help the award could not go ahead -- though he doesn't really make clear why. (Sure, more money is always better, and the loss of government funds obviously posed a problem; still, how much can running this thing cost?) He notes:
Walsh does note that while there has been some fuss over the years about the money behind the Man Group-supported prizes -- the Man Booker Prizes (the MB, The MB International) and the Man Asian Literary Prize -- these have never seen any novelists demand to be removed from a shortlist, despite the money being no less dirty, Man Group being a "world-leading alternative investment management business" (i.e. really on top of all those capitalist tricks that ensure the wealthiest of the wealthy get even wealthier while the ninety-nine-plus per cent tread water ...) Maybe poets are just more ... empathetic? politically aware? attuned to the Zeitgeist? than novelists .....
Obviously, the T.S.Eliot Prize has a small P.R. fiasco in the making -- it's hard to be taken seriously as a poetry prize when shortlisted books keep being pulled from contention. I'm curious how this plays out. (My vote, of course: ignore Oswald and Kinsella, and keep their books in the running. They don't have to show up at the Aurum-sponsored reading if they don't want to (and if the prize is really still 'furnished' by the T.S.Eliot estate they can even take the £15,000 without any qualms ... everyone's happy!).)
As far as the issue of how tainted the Aurum money is ... well, dear god, do you really think any of the money that gets laundered through such prizes or any other fellowships or awards or anything of the sort -- whether private/corporate cash or government-channeled disbursements -- isn't so through and through sordidly filthy that if you knew the half of it you wouldn't be able to bear living with yourself ?
[As always, I must here interject my usual prize objection: authors should have no say whatsoever whether or not their books are considered for a prize, and they certainly shouldn't be allowed to withdraw them from consideration (or ask their publishers not to submit them in the first place). Book prizes are about the books, not the authors, and prizes should try to honor the best book, regardless of whether the author wants them to or not; if an author chooses to decline the prize once it's been awarded, that's fine -- they don't have to take the dirty money or trophy or diploma or whatever goes with the award -- but that's as far as their involvement should go. (That goes for author prizes, too, of course -- Sartre's Nobel is the perfect example.)]
At issue is the new 'sponsor', "specialist asset manager" (i.e. ultra-capitalist (or rather: system-taking-advantage-of) pigs) Aurum. What exactly their sponsorship involves is not made clear at the Poetry Book Society site (bad form) -- the press release gives no clue about how much money is involved, or even to what use it might be put -- even referring still to: "Mrs Valerie Eliot, who has generously donated the prize money since the inception of the Prize" -- though it does helpfully note (and this is presumably what set Oswald and Kinsella off):
The firm's long term investors include high net worth individuals, family offices, charities, pension funds and sovereign wealth funds.I.e. this is an investment firm that caters to tax-dodging, not-pulling-their-weight (because living off of capital rather than labor) scum -- the one per cent of the one per cent -- and thus facilitates the demise of contemporary society as we know it. (Well, that's my guess as to how Oswald and Kinsella interpret it.)
Certainly, the Poetry Book Society should be more forthcoming about what exactly Aurum have bought (or are paying for) with their sponsorship -- instead, there's no mention whatsoever of the supposed sponsors at the main T S Eliot Prize for Poetry page -- and there is the claim that:
The T S Eliot Prize is supported by the T S Eliot Estate.While I understand that it sometimes takes a while to update websites and pages (boy, do I understand), some transparency in this matter is surely rather ... urgent.
In The Independent John Walsh argues in an opinion piece that Without Aurum's help the award could not go ahead -- though he doesn't really make clear why. (Sure, more money is always better, and the loss of government funds obviously posed a problem; still, how much can running this thing cost?) He notes:
The prize is still in Mrs Eliot's gift. It does not issue from the coffers of Aurum Funds, which underwrites the costs of managing the prize and the poetry reading that precedes it. Without Aurum's help, the prize could not go ahead.Are the managers of the prize paid hedge-fund-officer-like compensation that they need a large outside subsidy? What kind of money are we talking about here anyway? No doubt, Aurum will probably pay for a better caterer at the poetry reading than they're used to, but otherwise?
Walsh does note that while there has been some fuss over the years about the money behind the Man Group-supported prizes -- the Man Booker Prizes (the MB, The MB International) and the Man Asian Literary Prize -- these have never seen any novelists demand to be removed from a shortlist, despite the money being no less dirty, Man Group being a "world-leading alternative investment management business" (i.e. really on top of all those capitalist tricks that ensure the wealthiest of the wealthy get even wealthier while the ninety-nine-plus per cent tread water ...) Maybe poets are just more ... empathetic? politically aware? attuned to the Zeitgeist? than novelists .....
Obviously, the T.S.Eliot Prize has a small P.R. fiasco in the making -- it's hard to be taken seriously as a poetry prize when shortlisted books keep being pulled from contention. I'm curious how this plays out. (My vote, of course: ignore Oswald and Kinsella, and keep their books in the running. They don't have to show up at the Aurum-sponsored reading if they don't want to (and if the prize is really still 'furnished' by the T.S.Eliot estate they can even take the £15,000 without any qualms ... everyone's happy!).)
As far as the issue of how tainted the Aurum money is ... well, dear god, do you really think any of the money that gets laundered through such prizes or any other fellowships or awards or anything of the sort -- whether private/corporate cash or government-channeled disbursements -- isn't so through and through sordidly filthy that if you knew the half of it you wouldn't be able to bear living with yourself ?