I would like to thank the Gratiaen Trust for inviting me to serve on the panel of judges for the 2007 Gratiaen Prize for Sri Lankan Literature in English. I believe I speak for all three of us on the panel of judges when I say that this has been a highly enjoyable and invigorating, though at times, exasperating three months, during which time, we had the opportunity and the pleasure to read, read and read, and re-read your work.    

***

It is my task this evening, in what can be seen as a significant devolution of power on the part of the Chair - in what was altogether a participatory process of judging - to discuss the criteria for selecting the shortlist for the Gratiaen Prize.

**

I have no doubt that all of you will agree with me when I say that literary preferences, like any other predilection is a highly subjective business. If I may resort to a couple of clichés - one woman's trash is another woman's treasure. One man's meat is another man's poison, etc. etc.

Some of us have an innate, instinctive sense of what electrifies us, or what warms our interest, what leaves us cold or what we feel merely lukewarm about. Others have fashioned their own personal standards as to what constitutes 'good' or 'high' literature or what is pulp or plum. Those of us in the profession of teaching literature have even devised our own fundamental literary principles and critical theories of evaluating and critiquing literary writing.

The Panel thus had a potential problem. Our only commonality was that we had all read literature for a degree at some point in our lives. But all of us, had since, moved into multidisciplinary fields. Amongst us there were - a historian, an educationist, a feminist, a political scientist, a critical theorist, a methodologist, and a sociologist.

 ***

No, I assure you, there were just the three of us! 

However, as you can see our literary and epistemological bearings were quite miscellaneous and extensive.

This was compounded by the Gratiaen's openness and liberality - in not defining or constraining the types of submissions.

It was thus after some consideration that we managed to identify the following criteria for selecting the shortlist – which had to be narrow and focused enough to conform to certain standards and universals of 'literature' - while conversely being broad and flexible enough to cover the literary forms of poetry, fiction, prose and drama.

***

All of us unanimously agreed that one of the most decisive factors that define the creative arts is the impact of a work of literature – its inherent power and passion to touch or move or connect with the reader and excite her or his interest – whether it was through sheer brilliance in creative style; or through critical insights about reality; or through the faculties of wit, satire, irony and so on.

Of course, as you would no doubt appreciate – this resulted in a number of long-standing and fiery debates - given the subjectivity implied by the issue. We finally agreed that assessing impact was a process that could not always be dissected or deconstructed - as it worked simultaneously on the intuitive as well as critical levels.    

**

Then we discussed language use – not only as the ability to harness and communicate one's thoughts and feelings but also in terms of the writer's command over language, and his or her range, flow and polish as far as the vocabulary was concerned.

A related issue was that of the writer's creativity and craft. Here, I refer to the overall effect arising from the amalgamation of creative and literary techniques dealing with narrative structures, poetic forms and deconstruction, with rhymes and rhythms, with discourse and diction and imagery and so on - calculated to move or provoke the reader.

However, in the final analysis, we all decided that though mastery in language was critical as a component of the selection criteria, it was not an end in itself - but should only be considered a tool to enhance the power of communication - for if the writing could not seize the imagination and sweep the reader away then it was debatable whether we were discussing 'literature'.

***

Another area where we could celebrate a high degree of consensus in judging was when it came to the consistency in writing. There were writers about whom we felt very passionately – who were consistently of very high calibre. There were others who were prone to great flights of inspiration - as well as - unevenness in the one and same work, and yet others, who maintained a sustained state – neither stimulating nor vexing the reader. As a result, the importance of maintaining uniformity in standard featured in almost all our deliberations thus influencing the way all of us critically evaluated the submissions.  

***

Another critical standard we applied was that of literary insight. By literary insight we meant the individual writer's inimitable and subjective understanding / perspective of the human condition or worldview that made her or him distinctive from all those that went before. This could be related to a glint of original thought regarding the universe, a critical insight into a particular social or personal issue, a unique expression of the writer's personality or identity, or a distinctive political or ethical standpoint regarding life.

Here, I must admit that the theoretical training of the judges also led to a tendency to value the writer's capacity to construct, represent and reflect on the socio-political consciousness of his or her times as well as his or her conscience – even though we may not have necessarily been in agreement with the writer's politics or vision.

**

Yet, despite or rather, in spite of these cerebral disputes and deliberations we have finally been able to achieve a consensus on the shortlist for the Gratiaen Prize 2007.

Before you listen to what Dr. Rama Mani has to say I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my thanks to the Gratiaen Trust - particularly to Mr. Tissa Jayatillake and Ms. Kamini de Zoysa, and my long-suffering colleagues Dr. Sinharaja Tammitta Delgoda and Dr. Rama Mani. Finally, I would like to salute all the authors for their creative contributions and congratulate the short listed writers.