Display Ad1


Article inline

On the Médicis jury, reform was a subject too delicate to be broached, mentioned Marie Darrieussecq, a member since 2017. Not less than one juror robotically voted for books from his writer, she mentioned.

Jurors, writers and editors mentioned that publishers additionally secured the votes of judges who weren’t staff by different means, together with ebook advances or funds for a preface.

“In France, it is likely to be 15,000 euros, 20,000 euros,” Ms. Darrieussecq mentioned, referring to advances of $18,000 and $24,000. “However for these 20,000 euros, they are going to be loyal, trustworthy, that are fairly phrases to say corrupt.”

Defenders of lifetime appointments argue that the holders develop experience.

Christine Jordis, a longtime editor {and professional} reader at Gallimard and a Femina choose since 1996, rejected the suggestion that her work influenced her voting — saying as an alternative that it gave her monetary independence.

She dismissed critics of lifetime appointments, saying, “These are younger individuals who consider in egalitarianism, who assume anyone can learn in addition to anyone else.”

Sylvie Ducas, an skilled on literary juries on the College of Paris-Est Créteil, mentioned that even partial reforms would assist the Renaudot and different prizes regain credibility.

“They need to reform, in order that they are often in a system that displays extra our understanding of a democratic tradition,” Ms. Ducas mentioned, including, “A jury that doesn’t know the best way to reform for the time being it’s underneath menace, that’s a lifeless jury.”

See also  Columnist: Trump appears comfortable to torpedo GOP probabilities in Georgia - CNN Video


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here