The Trial Against the Literary Fund
This article is based on this Dutch article of Martijn Benders
The Lawsuit Against the Letterenfonds
How did the lawsuit against the Letterenfonds unfold? It was supposed to start at 15:40, but there was no one from the Fund in sight. After some searching, it turned out they were sitting around the corner at the wrong door.
The verdict will be delivered within six weeks. The judge (Joyce Lie, also known as Judge Joyce) and the clerk seemed thorough and sincere to me. They appeared genuinely interested in the case at hand.
However, I found it strange that the company’s attorney who had been emailing on behalf of the Letterenfonds was nowhere to be seen. I had asked her for her statute but received no response. Is that why she didn’t come? I received the response to my timely submitted legal argument only during the trial, whereas the Letterenfonds had received both my legal argument and my letter in advance. I find this a strange course of events. I couldn’t prepare for that answer, which is unfortunate because it was filled with the utmost nonsense.
A sleight-of-hand trick often seen with certain officials during trials involving writers. For instance, if a writer says he was treated by a Christian five times in a row, the Letterenfonds would exclaim, “there aren’t five Christians on this advisory board,” making it seem like a nearly genuine exchange, except for the facts, of course, because I wasn’t talking about this advisory board. If the writer says two owners of a publishing house are Christian, Romke would shout, “they don’t hold a majority interest,” because you said “the owner,” right? This can make for a fun afternoon, but my language was indeed correct, I’m sorry. Publishing House Van Oorschot has six shareholders, and the mentioned individuals are two of them, and they are called owners, even if they don’t have a majority interest.
The fact that the Letterenfonds focuses on the absence of a “majority interest” as a counter-argument, while you are essentially correct in naming these individuals as owners, feels like a diversionary tactic. Shareholders, even without a majority interest, are still owners of a company, and this is a recognized concept in both business and legal contexts. So why seize upon this rather trivial point to lecture me? Everyone knows that Menno Hartman leads Publishing House Van Oorschot.
And then the so-called defense against my argument, where they liberally throw around the magic formula “quality is subjective.” I’d like to say a few words about that.
Let’s imagine a master sausage maker. Does he find the quality of the sausage subjective? Certainly not; on the contrary, he becomes frothy at the mouth at the idea.
But, but… if you put five master sausage makers together, and they all start bickering over the quality of the sausage, then that quality is subjective, right? No, they all make very good sausages because they are masters. The fact that they disagree is part of that mastery.
Should the Sausage Makers’ Guild have a sign above the door reading “All Sausage is Subjective”? Only if it’s a particularly dystopian guild. And unfortunately, the Letterenfonds is too: an organization stuck somewhere in the Middle Ages, with an almighty figure behind a dark curtain who can’t be held accountable by either the readers or the writers and has absolute control over your salary. An atmosphere of fear, in other words. Someone with omnipotence whom you can’t control has their fingers on your wallet.
Is it exciting? Certainly, but does it produce truly good literature? I doubt it. It mainly produces a lot of silent writers, which was probably the intention of the construct.
In my case, it won’t result in a new application because I’m hanging up on the Letterenfonds. Someone asked me recently: why do you even apply for that work grant if it’s well below the welfare level? And I was momentarily speechless. Then I thought: yes, it’s because you want to have some pride. To be able to say: I have a work grant, instead of: I am on welfare. And apparently, I was willing to forgo quite a bit for that, thanks to those biased assessments, of course.
Maybe not enough magic tricks in the ears. What do you say, “bleast”? But speaking of sausage making and the famous quality, I’ve analyzed their “quality spiel” for the Letterenfonds, free of charge. I’ll paste it below. The real answer is: you don’t know if something is subjective or not. Not “it is subjective,” that’s the opinion of an overly zealous bureaucrat who doesn’t have much understanding of art.
Problematic Phrasing in the Guidelines of the Letterenfonds
The Guidelines for the Evaluation of Literary Works state this sentence: “We are fully aware that a quality assessment of an artistic performance, such as a literary work, is subjective.” A passage that suggests a traumatized complaint. It seems as if the Letterenfonds is responding to a storm of criticism about unfairness in their assessment practices. Here’s why this word is odd in that context:
1. Overemphasis suggests defensiveness:
The word ‘fully’ means ‘very well’, ‘thoroughly’, or ‘completely’, placing strong emphasis on the awareness of subjectivity. This overemphasis can come across as defensive, as if the Letterenfonds must defend itself against previous accusations of bias or unfairness. It creates a tone of self-justification that is unusual in formal guidelines. It is remarkable that it appeared in these formal guidelines nonetheless.
2. Implicit acknowledgment of criticism:
By explicitly emphasizing that they are ‘fully’ aware of subjectivity, it seems the Letterenfonds implicitly acknowledges that there have been problems with their assessment processes. It suggests they have received criticism before and are now trying to reassure that they are fully aware of possible biases.
But that is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem here is that “every assessment of quality is subjective” is a typical amateur opinion about literary processes. A music connoisseur does not call the works of Bach “subjective,” nor the judgment about them. The correct position from the expert’s point of view is, “I don’t know whether the judgment is subjective or objective,” after which time will do its work, and the quality of the oeuvre will increasingly prove itself.
The current phrasing implies that all assessments are equal, regardless of the assessor’s expertise. This minimizes the role of professional critics and literary scholars, whose experience and knowledge are vital for distinguishing high-quality works. It suggests that there is no difference between a superficial opinion and an informed analysis, which devalues the assessment process.
5. Risk of relativizing quality:
By declaring quality judgments purely subjective, the Letterenfonds opens the door to relativism, where no standard remains relevant. This can lead to a situation where every work is considered equally valuable, regardless of its actual literary merits. It undermines the ability to recognize and reward excellence, which is a core function of the Letterenfonds.
Conclusion:
The use of ‘fully’ reinforces a defensive stance and emphasizes an incorrect view of the nature of literary assessment. By stating that every quality judgment is subjective, the Letterenfonds adopts an amateurish stance that calls into question the professional integrity of their assessment process. A more accurate and expert approach would acknowledge that while personal interpretation plays a role, there are also objective criteria and subject-matter expertise that contribute to a nuanced judgment.
Recommended rephrasing:
“We are aware that evaluating an artistic performance, such as a literary work, encompasses both subjective impressions and objective standards. Our evaluations are based on professional expertise and established literary criteria to assess the quality of the work.”
This rephrasing avoids defensiveness, acknowledges the complexity of the assessment process, and emphasizes the professional competence of the Letterenfonds. It respects both the subjective and objective aspects of literary criticism and confirms the commitment to a balanced and expert evaluation.
Martijn Benders, 24 October 2024