In the Médicis jury, the reform is an issue that is too sensitive to be addressed, said Marie Darrieussecq, a member since 2017. At least one juror automatically voted for his editor’s books, she said.
Jurors, writers, and editors said the publishers also secured the votes of non-salaried judges by other means, including book advances or payments for a foreword.
“In France it could be 15,000 euros, 20,000 euros,” Ms. Darrieussecq said, referring to advances of 18,000 and 24,000 US dollars. “But for this 20,000 euros they will be loyal and faithful, what pretty words are to say corrupt.”
Lifelong appointment defenders argue that holders develop expertise.
Christine Jordis, long-time editor and professional reader at Gallimard and a judge at Femina since 1996, declined the suggestion that her work affected her voting. Instead, it gave her financial independence.
She dismissed critics of lifelong appointments, saying, “These are young people who believe in egalitarianism and believe that anyone can read as well as anyone else.”
Sylvie Ducas, an expert on literary juries at the University of Paris-Est Créteil, said that even partial reforms would help the Renaudot and other awards regain credibility.
“They have to reform so that they can find themselves in a system that is more a reflection of our understanding of a democratic culture,” said Ms. Ducas, adding: “A jury that does not know how at the moment it is threatened it should reform itself. ” It’s a dead jury. “
Comments are closed.