Well, it’s on again this year, as if you didn’t know, owing to the ineligibility of March, by Geraldine Brooks, and The Lost Thoughts of Soldiers, by Delia Falconer. The early indignation had diminished until Brooks’s novel (which is set in the United States during the Civil War and relates the story of the father in Louisa May Alcott’s classic novel Little Women) won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction.

Jane Sullivan, writing in The Age (April 20) about the supposed limitations of the Miles Franklin Award, provided another example of an old phenomenon in Australian journalism: when an artist does well overseas, especially in London or New York, we should promptly reward her in this country. Because Geraldine Brooks (‘one of our own’, Sullivan proudly noted) has won the Pulitzer Prize, we should ‘honour’ her, and presumably give her the Miles Franklin Award.

Short of some legal amendments to the bequest, this was always unlikely. March was never going to be eligible. (Whether or not a sequel to an American saga would get far with local judges is another matter.) Miles Franklin, no equivocator, was quite clear about her two criteria for eligibility when she created her award. Works must possess ‘the highest literary merit’ and must present Australian life ‘in any of its phases’. The nationality of the author has nothing to do with it. Africans and Americans and Armenians are all eligible, if they care to write about Australia. Few Australian prizes are so inclusive.

The reality for judges and trustees is clear. It was Miles Franklin’s money, and she knew what she was doing (though Jane Sullivan fancies she can divine her true intentions and has Miles ‘jumping up and down in her grave’ at the exclusion of any Australian novels). The trustees have a legal responsibility to honour the will, and the judges have a moral one to observe the criteria. They can make recommendations to the trustees, but no more than that.

In recent years we have seen more liberal interpretations of ‘Australian-ness’. Judging panels change. In 2001 the judges (including ABR’s Editor, Peter Rose) gave the prize to Frank Moorhouse’s Dark Palace – not because, as Sullivan suggests, of the ‘outcry’ over Moorhouse’s earlier exclusion, and not because we ‘tried to make it up to him’, but because there was consensus that it was the most notable book that year. (Forget the fact that none of the judges was involved in the elimination of Moorhouse’s Grand Days.) What a patronising thing to say about such a fine novelist, and what a cynical reading of the judges’ motives. Moorhouse’s eligibility having been quickly established (his main character was Australian: case dismissed), the old controversy did not come up. Sullivan ignores the fact that a few years earlier the judges gave the prize to Peter Carey’s Jack Maggs, whose Australian episode is fleeting, but sufficient.

Jane Sullivan, to our mind, revives an unfortunate and inaccurate impression that judging panels are hedged about with all sorts of dubious non-literary considerations. This has not been the experience of ‘Advances’ or of others we have spoken to about it. By and large, judges, those maligned creatures, take on the role in a spirit of goodwill and enquiry and commitment, not to settle tired old scores.

Changes at ABR

Devotees of the imprint page will have spotted a number of changes, which ‘Advances’ must regretfully report. At ABR’s recent annual general meeting, Robert Manne resigned as Chair after seven years in the seat. He did so because of his expanded editorial role at The Monthly, but also because of his acceptance of the desirability of change at any organisation. Rob was warmly thanked by his colleagues for his wise and subtle direction of the magazine. Peter Rose added his personal thanks; few magazine editors have had such constructive and supportive chairs. Happily for us, Robert Manne will continue to write for ABR.

Morag Fraser, a board member since 2003, is the new Chair. Dennis Altman and Peter McLennan have joined the board. The latter, following Matt Kumar’s resignation from the board, was elected Treasurer.

Farewell to Aviva Tuffield

Aviva Tuffield, ABR’s Deputy Editor since 2001, left the magazine when this issue went off to print. She has resigned to spend more time with her young family and to commission fiction titles for Scribe.

Aviva’s contribution to the magazine, as people who write for us know well, has been exceptional and diverse: producing the magazine, commissioning articles, writing some herself, organising the reviewing competition, and so much more. Aviva leaves ABR with our thanks and best wishes, but she too will be back, as a contributor.

Jo Case, meanwhile, is the new Deputy Editor. Jo has worked for OUP, Dymocks and Readings. She has two reviews in this issue.