There has been an incredible and very audible pogrom since the publication of the list of finalists for this year’s National Book Prize. Not exactly because of those who made it, meritoriously or not, but because of those who didn’t.

The noises being made, the accusations branded all over the place, and the general sense of discontent certainly indicate something is indeed rotten in the state of Denmark – bookwise.

There has been a general feeling of disgust as readers, authors, and publishers vented their anger over the fact that the list of finalists has become so predictable that many of them have given up or are about to give up and will no longer submit their works for a National Book Prize that has been outrightly usurped by various cliques allegedly within and without the National Book Council.

Why should the same names pop up, year after year, literally monopolising the whole competition and leaving no space for others who may be as good but do not belong to or are not in cahoots with influential channels that breathe air in and out of the whole annual exercise? This has been a top-of-the-table question raised during these last few days as the exasperation of many grew by the minute.

There are writers, young and old, who seriously dedicate their lives to writing and sticking to creativity, publishers who give them opportunities often at considerable expense, and readers who love Maltese books but are openly wary of what has been going on since a new National Book Council was set up – from one Mark Camilleri to another Mark Camilleri. They want to read different authors, but they also want them to be honoured and treated as equals rather then as perennial also-rans or flops.

All along the years, the judging process has been marked by incredulous decisions, inconsistent attitudes, and suspicious voting procedures. For example, how can a judge give 95 points to a good author’s work, while another judge splashes a zero for the same submission? It just doesn’t make sense and causes distrust. That’s a true story and there are many like it, as people within hearing distance of the Book Council will tell you.

One irate author told the Navigator: “Not only do the same people get the prizes and the same publishers are given the marketing boost they crave for, but it seems that you stand a better chance if you were a woman or in the good books of some hidden power.

But the pot is now boiling. The authorities concerned would do well to see why there seems to be the familiar George Orwell dictum of “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” being applied. As the prize-giving ceremony approaches, the questions continue to pile up, a situation that was not this bad when the notorious Mark Camilleri the First ran the Council with an iron fist, but still got things going much more fairly and transparently than what is seemingly is the situation today under Mark Camilleri the Second.

A completely disoriented publisher has rightly been asking why some fellow publishers seem to regularly make the finals and eventually carry off the prizes, while others depend on titbits and tiny morsels of recognition for works that are undeniably worthy of much more note and credit.

It is not a situation that augurs well for the Maltese book sector. Publishers have shown unity recently in disclosing their concern over the dwindling market for their products, appealing to Government and its departments and agencies to address the crisis. If people and many of those involved in book writing, publishing and selling continue to lose hope and are even considering calling it a day, then the need for a review of how things stand, who is putting spanners in the works, and why there is so much disgruntlement, is imperative.

Lopsided thinking

So, in it’s pre-Budget document, the Chamber of Commerce came out with no less than 36 proposals, one of which is highly controversial and invites palpable criticism. Introducing payment for parking in central urban centres will not in any way solve the issue of emissions. People would just avoid them and park somewhere else, probabably in village and town streets where parking is already a frustrating issue, and adding to the traffic confusion when distributors of all sorts continue to converge at shop corners and double park anywhere near when even that is not possible.

The Chamber’s argument is that with the money generated, new sustainable modes of transport could be purchased and put in public use. Wrong again, unless they want to introduce bumper rates that would add to people’s predilection to stay away from there, creating problems elsewhere. When are we going to understand this is a small island? Transport problems require better-informed and more innovative decisions. Simply tinkering with the issue would just be an exercise in frivolity.

They had another mind-boggling proposal – vehicle licence payment rates should be conditional and established as per how often the said vehicle is used or not used. Malta is not Singapore.

Streetlights at night

A new scientific study has shown that all-night streetlights seem to be changing how nature’s ecosystem works around them. According to scientists at Beijing’s University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, leaving streetlights on all night appears to make plant leaves tougher and harder for insects to eat. It was noticed that tree leaves next to streetlights seem to show less damage from insects than trees in rural areas.

Trees and plants constantly lit by natural light and then streetlight often put their energy in defending themselves by becoming tougher and adding chemical defences like tannins. The obvious reaction is to carry out a back-to-the-70s alternative by radically reducing – if not switching off altogether – the number of streetlights at some given moment during the night in non-urban areas.

Wonder what the Chamber would say to that. They could have had a 37th proposal.

Main photo: National Book Council