It is perhaps not surprising that people got angry. In a large petition in VG last week, a large number of writers believed that the future of Norwegian literature was in danger. Among them were prominent names such as Karl Ove Knausgård, Vigdis Hjorth, Per Petterson, Dag Solstad and Linn Ullmann. And what was the danger they warned against? Yes, a proposal that the Norwegian Writers’ Association, of which they themselves are members, should no longer be responsible for awarding the state’s artist grants to writers. There were, to put it mildly, reactions. Crime writer Anne Holt wrote on her Facebook page that the post was “so gross, so full of pathos and so stupid that it’s downright embarrassing.” Was there a point in the wording that provoked Holt and many others so strongly? CRITICAL: Anne Holt took a strong stand against the author colleagues’ appeal. Photo: Ole Gunnar Onsøien / NTB We take it from the beginning. Writers are like everyone else. They need groceries, they need clothes and shoes, they need a glass of wine on the town sometimes. In other words, they must have an income to get through everyday life. The problem is that the income you get from writing books only comes after the book has been written and sold. And what an average Norwegian book publisher throws away is rarely enough for groceries, clothes and wine, at least not for a long time. Therefore, the vast majority of Norwegian authors are dependent on grants. The scholarships are mostly funded by the public, and if you get one like that, it’s because someone with the power to award thinks that what you have in mind is so good, so important, that you should get public support to write. But who should these “someones” be? And what should be the criteria for getting a grant? And thus get the books written that in a few years will fill up the bookshops? That question is at the center of the dogfight that was triggered by the call for writers in VG. Now writer stands against writer, writer’s association against writer’s association, while others stand on the sidelines and join hands and say something like: You, you, shouldn’t we be friends? ASK FOR RECONCILIATION: Author Maja Lunde wants one writers’ association, not two that are bickering. Photo: Vidar Ruud / NTB The call for authors did not come out of the blue. It was a response to the Storting message “Kunstnarkår”. Namely, it heralds changes in the composition of the committees that award the most important of the artist grants, the Statens kunstnerstipend. So far, this responsibility has rested with the so-called literary council, which is appointed by the Norwegian Writers’ Association. The literary council is also the group that awards the association’s own scholarships. The members themselves receive a salary, the size of a stipend, to ensure that they are able to assess everyone who applies. In total, they must read everything that comes out of Norwegian novels and short stories in a year, and they must also be able to read up on the previous books of those applying for a scholarship. This is not work that someone gets rich from, but it involves considerable power and considerable responsibility. Now they may have to share both. For the Norwegian Authors’ Association is no longer the only sheriff in town. SIGNED: Karl Ove Knausgård is among those who warn against a restructuring of the scholarship system. Photo: Berit Roald / NTB Let’s rewind a bit in time. The Norwegian Authors’ Association has never seen itself as a pure trade union. They are more of a guild, an artist organization. They must not only look after the artists, but also the art. Therefore, they have been picky about who has been allowed to become members. A member must not only have published at least two books. One of the books must be of such high quality that it is approved by the Literary Council. Those who do not meet the council’s quality standard will not be admitted. There have been a good number of controversial refusals over the years, and several of them have made major headlines in the media. Successful series authors such as Margit Sandemo and Frid Ingulstad, for example, did not stand a chance. Although there was disagreement within the Writers’ Association about the various refusals, there was broad agreement that there had to be criteria for admission. It is also not unusual in organizational life that an association is not open to everyone who wishes to do so. NEVER A MEMBER: Margit Sandemo, the hugely successful author of book series such as “Sagaen om Isfolket”, never became a member of the Norwegian Writers’ Association. Photo: Lisbeth David-Andersen / news But the scheme left quite a few people on the sidelines. These were people who lived by writing but had nowhere to go to organize themselves. They too needed legal assistance, someone who could take their side in workplace disputes. Thus, it was not so surprising that another organization arose, namely the Authors’ Association, which was created in 2018 and became affiliated with LO. Here, anyone who had published a work of fiction could become a member, without quality requirements. And not enough of that. Budding writers, who were in the process of writing but had not been published, could also enter as so-called “aspirant members”. The aspirant members make up around 20 per cent of the Authors’ Association’s around 500 members. The authors’ association is still considerably larger, with around 760 members. Since then, the relationship between the two associations has been, to put it mildly, tense. A feeling has taken hold that the A team of writers is in the Writers’ Association and the B team in the Writers’ Association. That feeling is not least present in the rally in VG, where the A-team beats the B-team. There, the Authors’ Association’s influence is made into a direct threat to Norwegian quality literature as we know it. REACTED: The Authors’ Association’s Eystein Hanssen found the post from the concerned authors to be condescending. Photo: NTB Many of those who are organized in this Writers’ Association, and experience it as professional and supportive, naturally see this as a deep insult. In several cases, the two authors’ associations have common interests and work together. They both serve to slow down the decline in book sales, and to secure the authors’ rights when dealing with the publishers. In other fields, they stand squarely against each other. The Authors’ Association is keen to fight for quality literature to be recognised. That there must be quality criteria that must be the basis when the state gives you money to write. For many of them, it is indisputable that this is best done through thorough reading of various authors, and that skilled readers must be paid a fee for doing this job. The Authors’ Association is more concerned with breadth, with equal treatment. They believe that as much as possible of the grant funds must be used on the authors themselves. Those who sit on the scholarship committee of the Writers’ Association also receive a fee, but not as much. It also has quality as a criterion, but takes more into account how good the applications are, and how likely it is that the scholarship will actually result in a book. CRITICAL: Dag Solstad was among the authors who signed the petition to protect the current scholarship system. Photo: Vidar Ruud / NTB These are two legitimate approaches. And it can be a good thing for Norwegian literature that there are two associations that emphasize different things when they distribute money. To understand why there has now become a war between the two wings, we have to go back to the Storting message “Kunstnerkår”. It states outright that the committee that awards the state’s artist grants must reflect the reality in literary Norway, where there is no longer just one writers’ organization. The authors who signed the petition are worried about what will happen if the Authors’ Association is allowed to take part in awarding the State’s artist grant. They fear that those who want to represent the Authors’ Association in such a committee will take the method from their organization with them, and will not place as much importance on the quality of an entire authorship. For many, it is provocative that an association that accommodates so many aspirants, who are not yet writers and may never become one, should have influence over who the state pays to write. WHAT TO WRITE: Most authors depend on grants to be able to write their books. Therefore, they are fighting to decide who should be awarded these scholarships. Photo: Gorm Kallestad / NTB Forfatterforbundet, for its part, believes that it is unsustainable that the Authors’ Association’s literary council should have power both over its own scholarships and the State’s scholarships. Many people there are thoroughly angry at the suggestion that their members should not be able to recognize quality, especially since many of the Authors’ Association members like to apply for grants from them. The head of the authors’ association, Eystein Hanssen, also points out that the awarding of the State’s artist grant must take place in accordance with the state’s guidelines, and that the authors who have complained cannot decide how a committee with members from both associations will work. For many, it was a call closely woven with red cloths. Claims such as the absurdity of equating Jon Fosse with an unpublished writer with a file on the computer fall on their own absurdity. All authors, Fosse as well as the other signatories, have once been young, unknown and hopeful writers, with little else to show for it but an unfinished script. Within literature Norway, it also quickly became apparent that several of those who signed had not read the finished text, and did not really endorse the belligerent tone. SIGNED: Vigdis Hjorth is among the many high-profile writers who signed the petition in VG. Photo: Sara Angelica Spilling But in the uproar that arose after the petition was published, it is easy to overlook the heart of the matter. Who will get taxpayer money to write their book and how will they be selected? Should it be those who write ambitious and distinctive texts, which have value even if they don’t sell big? Or should it be those who are most convincing in their application, and who have consistently proven to be able to implement? Sometimes one and the same writer will be skilled at both. But not always. Writing a good novel is something completely different from writing a good application. It is not so difficult to understand those who fear what will be lost, if it is the application rather than the literature itself that weighs heaviest when the money runs out. This weekend I spoke to one of those who had written under the petition. He pointed to a couple of Norwegian poets. Famous names, published in anthologies and textbooks. But hardly so good at selling themselves. Relegated to living a life of poverty, even if they were famous. “I just want us to continue to take care of people like them,” said this writer. So it can be said that there is still no reason to be so sure that these poets would be left out in the cold if the Literary Council was no longer allowed to hand out state grants alone. But it is a consideration worth thinking about, which often disappears in the noise that arises when people who can speak and write are at each other’s throats.
ttn-69
The A-team of Norwegian writers is unleashing on the B-team – Expression
