Here’s an excellent literary commentary from Publishers Weekly, by indie book publishers Chris Fischbach and Fiona McCrae, on how the National Book Awards could be reformed–and equally important, the direction they believe the reforms should not take. The 2012 Awards were given last week, so this is very timely, with Fischbach and McCrae noting a recent NY Times article which reported that “the National Book Foundation is reviewing changes to its procedures in order to ‘create more splash’ and in particular to address criticisms that ‘in recent years judges had preferred little-known authors, which diminished the award’s stature.’”

They urge the Foundation not to make the annual awards into a contest that merely rewards “big books’ by “big authors” from “big publishers,” which most of the year “get the lion’s share of attention.” By contrast, they say, “the annual national awards provide an opportunity to audit the year’s books and to come up with lists that either echo the year’s noise and/or illuminate books that for whatever reason have remained under the mainstream radar. The element of surprise and discovery, we would argue, is absolutely part of the value of these awards.” I also found that the Times article mentioned some good ideas that are being contemplated, such as involving younger book industry people at award-related events during NBA week. For my part, I think the Foundation should continue doing more to reach out beyond the book industry to involve avid readers.

I recommend you read the excellent column by Fischbach and McCrae which affirms the vibrancy of the independent publishing spirit.
—
Nov. 28 Graywolf Press Update: Speaking of Graywolf, PW‘s Claire Kirch has also published this profile of them, Graywolf Press in a New Era. Last, I made one of Graywolf’s current titles, Mary Jo Bang’s new translation of Dante’s Inferno, my #FridayReads last April 27.