1

Politics as a gate-crasher: literary consecration and publishing controversies in the

“Spilt Milk episode” (Brazil, 2010)

José de Souza Muniz Jr.

University of São Paulo (USP), Brazil

jose.muniz@usp.br

I

On November 4th, 2010, the audience was astonished by the announcement of the

winner of the highly coveted Jabuti award for the "Fiction Book of the Year". The prize went

to Chico Buarque, whose Leite derramado [Spilt Milk] had placed second in the "Novel"

category, coming in behind journalist Edney Silvestre's Se eu fechar os olhos agora [If I close

my eyes now]. It was the methodology the award used at the time that allowed this to

happen. In the first phase of the selection process, a specialized jury chose the top three

books for each category. These books moved on to the second phase, where the publishing

industry voted to elect the winners of the two major "Book of the Year" (fiction and non-

fiction) awards.

The consecration of Chico Buarque was followed by days of heated debate. The media

circus began not only in outlets and sections specializing in culture and literature, but also in

more eclectic spaces, like a text written by Mônica Bergamo, a well-known social columnist

of the Folha de S. Paulo, one of Brazil's major newspapers. Yet the main instigator of the

debate was the Folha's "Ilustríssima" section, which is managed by Paulo Werneck, who

worked for the Companhia das Letras, the publisher of Chico's books. The Sunday paper's

culture section gave space to the parties involved (the publishers and the Brazilian Book

Chamber) and dedicated two entire pages to a discussion on the legitimacy of literary prizes.

Another media outlet that diligently followed the debate was the blog of Reinaldo Azevedo - a

political columnist of Veja, the largest right-wing magazine in Brazil - who had already had

two of his books published by Record, Edney's publisher.

Record's directors publicly disqualified the Jabuti award and questioned the voters'

decision-making capacity (i.e. that of the publishers and booksellers themselves). According

to Record's president, Sérgio Machado, the Jabuti has become "a beauty contest", whose

awards are "based on political criteria taken from either big-time national politics or the small-

time politics of the bookseller-publishing sector". This was not a random comment: Chico had

recently expressed his support for Dilma Rousseff, who had been elected president of Brazil

2

just days before the prize was awarded. Reinaldo Azevedo, opponent of the PT government,

addressed the issue thoroughly in his blog, describing the Jabuti as a "political-ideological

shindig determined to give an award to Chico Buarque every time he decides to spill his

milk". He argued that the Jabuti ("whose symbol should be a hyena - that attacks in packs")

had become a political prize bent on favouring left-wing authors.

Record even went so far as to announce that it would no longer participate in the Jabuti

awards. In a letter to the Brazilian Book Chamber (Câmara Brasileira do Livro, or CBL for its

acronym in Portuguese), the company president expressed its discontent with its "flawed

criteria" and announced the company's withdrawal from the award to avoid having to "go

along with this farce". For Machado, the rules for the "Book of the Year" prize favour media

figures like Chico Buarque, which takes away from its merit-based nature. Luiz Schwarcz,

Chico's publisher, criticized the words of their competitors from Rio de Janeiro, arguing that

they reveal the "typical attitude of the authoritarian tradition, and not of someone defending

meritocracy". In the opinion of the Companhia das Letras' president, the accusations and

offences "reproduce the low and offensive level of the political-electoral debate in Brazil in

the publishing field". Once the animosity - expressed through replies and rejoinders from

authors, journalists, critics and bloggers - had passed, both sides of the dispute proved much

more amicable while suggesting changes to the prize's rules.

This was neither the first, nor the last time that the distribution of the "turtle" awards

caused discontent. It was, in fact, a replay of the commotion that arose in 2004 when Chico

Buarque won the coveted award with his book Budapest, even though it had not come in first

in the "Novel" category. A similar episode took place in 2008: O menino que vendia palavras

[The boy who sold words] by Ignácio de Loyola Brandão, which had placed second in the

"Children's literature" category, won the "Fiction Book of the Year" award. This kind of

problem ceased to exist in 2011, when a new rule was introduced: only books ranking first

place in each category could run for the grand prizes. Even so, the Jabuti's criteria continue

to be questioned year after year in specialized sections of the press.

II

Our interest here, however, is not so much to exhaust the content of these discussions,

but rather to examine the conditions that allow them to happen. After all, it is rare to see an

award mobilize so much effort from the media and lead editors, writers, journalists and critics

to engage in such position-takings. This kind of debate - which reached new heights in 2010,

but takes place year after year at varying levels of intensity - shows the agents' level of

3

involvement in a game that is apparently worth playing. In spite of the frequent criticisms it

receives, the Jabuti award continues to capture the spotlight and to be considered the most

important literary prize in Brazil - even though it is not exactly literary and the amount given

to winners leaves much to be desired in comparison to other literary awards in the country.

Chico's victory probably would not have had the repercussion it did if it had not been

for the combination of a public figure's involvement with the presidential race - a mix that

impregnated the literary debate with electoral content. Regardless of if the award was

actually subject to political interests or not, as Sérgio Machado and Reinaldo Azevedo

suggested it was, in the end, national politics did crash the ceremony. In this case, and in

others, the Jabuti award gained a centrality that has less to do with the merit of the books,

and more with the legitimacy of the award itself. At times, it has been accused of being

"contaminated" by national politics, while at others, it has been questioned for flaws in its

methodology, which were later addressed.

When called upon to make statements on thorny issues, the prize's curator José Luiz

Goldfarb uses the same arguments: competitors were aware of the rules; the Jabuti award is

improving and will reassess its criteria; and all this noise only goes to show the importance of

the Jabuti award for our publishing industry. In fact, the prize has earned greater recognition

in the past two decades, but this only becomes visible when its criteria are being questioned.

The routine and civilized dispute for the prize gets taken to another level when the focus is

on the prize itself, rather than on the publishers, authors and works that seek to use it to

enhance their visibility and reputation. Far from threatening the Jabuti's importance in the

market of publishing awards, the commotion makes it more well known and wanted.

It is safe to argue that the CBL would not have been able to give such prominence to

the Jabuti had it not been for the strategic moves it has made since 1991, when the

Chamber's president at the time, Ary Benclowicz, invited Goldfarb to be the award's curator.

Even though it has been held since 1958 and prides itself on its uninterrupted trajectory, it

was only in the 1990s that the Jabuti award became more professional and started to

undergo a series of changes: to the details of the rules, the number of categories and prizes,

and the venue and the format of the ceremony. When one contrasts the relative stability in

the criteria and categories up until then with the changes that followed, one finds an erratic,

yet rational path - a kind of trade apprenticeship during which the curator adjusted the

Jabuti's calibre to give more noisy grandeur and a more official air to it.

Some details from Goldfarb's background help to understand his role as the Jabuti

award's curator. A graduate of physics and philosophy, Goldfarb was an activist in the

student movement and got involved in a Trotskyite group that resisted the military

4

dictatorship in Brazil. A historian of science and university professor, he studied in Brazil and

Canada. He also decided to try his hand as a bookseller and editor, which is when, as a

member of the CBL's board, he was invited to be the Jabuti's curator. Later, he also

coordinated private and public sector policies to promote reading. Finally, he is a well-known

figure of the Jewish community in São Paulo. He is the Chair of Jewish Culture Studies at the

Catholic University (Pontifícia Universidade Católica or PUC, in Portuguese) and an active

member of the board of the Hebraica Club, one of the main Jewish organisations in the

country.

His multiple interests made him a perfect fit for the position of award curator, as it

required conciliating the members of the broad and heterogeneous universe of the publishing

field's aspirations to win awards. To do so, he raised the number of award categories

significantly, from 13 in 1991, when Goldfarb assumes the curatorship, to 29 in 2012. At the

beginning of this period, the prizes were focused on literature and were divided up into

categories corresponding to literary genres, plus some technical categories and one peculiar

spot reserved for exact sciences. 22 years later, there is space for a wide variety of niches.

Indeed, the changes in the categories' names show that, with the expansion of its award-

giving capacity, the Jabuti is now attracting other fields than those it originally contemplated

(see Annex 1).

In addition to the inclusion of new fields and categories, the increase in the number of

prizes per category was also raised: in 1991, only the top book from each category won an

award, whereas in 2012, three statues were awarded for each category. This means that

during this period, the number of trophies handed out per year increased six-fold (from 13 in

1991 to 89 in 2010). While editors like Schwarcz and Machado agree on the need to reduce

the number of prizes, to adopt a system that is similar to the Oscar's (i.e. a short list of

candidates with only one winner per category), one can understand the insistence on

maintaining a "generous" profile for an award that seeks to honour all areas of art and

knowledge that are publishable in books. Or almost all of them: the "Religion" category, for

example, was very short-lived (2000-2001).

Other changes adopted during this period clearly indicate the scope that the Jabuti

award wishes to attain in its mission of recognizing talent in the publishing industry. Members

of its evaluating committees are no longer recruited only from the CBL's entourage and have

become more geographically diverse. Jury members are not allowed to communicate with

each other during the process to avoid influencing one another, and are remunerated. A paid

curatorial committee has also been established to help Goldfarb with tasks ranging from

book registration to providing support for the evaluators' work. Since the beginning of

5

Goldfarb's curatorship, first place contestants in each category receive a (modest) amount of

money. As the resources are raised mainly through the registration fees paid by editors and

writers, with the establishment of cash prizes, the Jabuti award assumed definitively its role

in capital intraconversion1.

Perhaps the greatest leap in "pomp and circumstance" stem from changes to the

awards ceremony. Up until 2003, the celebration took place during the Bienal do Livro book

fair, which alternates between São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. For Goldfarb, this alternation

was fundamental for giving the prize a national scope and for attracting publishers from

outside of São Paulo. In 2004, due to a disagreement between the CBL, which organizes the

Bienal in São Paulo, and the National Book Publishers Union (Sindicato Nacional dos

Editores de Livros, SNEL), which organizes the Bienal in Rio, the ceremony was given its

own calendar and began to be held in the Latin American Memorial (Memorial da América

Latina) in São Paulo. Two years later, the trophy ceremony was transferred to a more

luxurious setting: the Sala São Paulo, the city's main concert hall. Even though it lost Rio as

a venue, the decision to no longer hold the ceremony during the Bienal book fairs gave the

Jabuti more autonomy, which it used to turn its ceremony into a major event, with greater

impact on the public and the media.

After three decades of relative stability, the long series of changes that the Jabuti went

through since Goldfarb assumed the curatorship has helped the award to become more

official and institutionalized. It now carries its own weight and has become the highest

instance of consecration of the Brazilian publishing field. The 2010 debate, as well as those

that preceded and followed it stem moreso from the discomfort generated by a prize awarded

by the publishing sector to the publishing sector. In the end, the coveted "Book of the Year"

trophies depend not only on the decisions of specialized evaluators, but also on the voting

process open to professionals from the area. As such, the election for "Book of the Year"

constitutes a heretical and inconvenient democracy that allows other criteria (success,

controversy, etc.) to prevail over those traditionally used to evaluate works, namely literary

ones (originality, command of the language, etc.), and even exempts one from the obligation

of reading the work. The Jabuti "Books of the Year" awards function, then, like a "call for

independence", or an unprecedented concentration of energy in a social space that is

unyielding to other fields (literary, scientific, philosophical, economic, etc.), yet depends on

them. This honour condenses the collective voice of a field that desires to erect its own altar

1 “[The prizes] are the single best instrument for negotiating transactions between cultural and economic, cultural and social, or cultural and political capital - which is to say that they are our most efficient institutional agents of capital intraconversion” (English, 2005, p.10).

6

of living gods based on its own values, as contradictory and obscure as its criteria may

appear.

It would be naive to think of the set of prizes awarded by the Jabuti as an accurate

reflection of the best of what is being published in the country. For one, all "elections" in

fields of symbolic production are arbitrary. Secondly, to be eligible for the award, the book

must be registered by the publisher or the author. Thus, the investment is always double: it is

symbolic, because it requires publishers and authors to share the assumption that winning a

Jabuti award is a legitimate way of having one's virtues publicly recognized; and

economically, because registering demands a certain amount of money. The fact that

publishers invest in this does not mean that the Jabuti award has succeeded in erecting a

pantheon of the Brazilian publishing industry on its own. Other prizes, the press, triumphalist

reports of biographers and booklovers, and other strategies publishers adopt have also

contributed to this. What makes the Jabuti award unique, then, is that it has slowly built up a

pantheon of live and active publishers with the support and sponsorship of the publishers

themselves and repercussions on the press. And what the Jabuti did over the past two

decades, under Goldfarb's leadership, was organize itself to become an instrument for the

construction of this new pantheon.

These rankings are the product of recognition from critics and peers, yet the results

depend on publishing houses investing in the game. Without trying to end this discussion

with a hierarchy, chronology or typology of publishers, we do feel one should note that in

studies on books in Brazil, a comparative and systematic perspective that focuses on the

relation between publishing houses' positions and the socio-historical roots of its editors is

lacking. Without this perspective, this kind of description will only serve to erect altars that

may or may not converge with the images that the media and the institutions from this field

draw using the golden paint of an either ideological or formalist book lover.

III

Hallewell (2005, p.740) noted that Collor's short-lived government coincided with the

death of great publishers, like José Olympio, Caio Prado Júnior and his son Caio Graco,

Sergio Lacerda, and Alfredo Machado, the founder of Record and father of Sérgio Machado.

At the end of the 1990s, another three important publishers also died: Ênio Silveira, Jorge

Zahar and Waldir Martins Fontes. Despite the efforts of their heirs and the new managers,

these publishing houses were not always able to sustain their catalogues and reputations.

However, this is not merely due to the internal circumstances of each one of them. Today,

7

these publishers have to deal with competition from new arrivals when recruiting authors,

translators and specialized professionals, obtaining positions of prestige and winning over

audiences.

In this context, the role of the Companhia das Letras must be mentioned. Created in

1987, Gustava Sorá (1997, p.169) describes it as "the benchmark that defined new

frameworks for perceiving and appreciating a good book at the end of the [19]80s". The

paradigmatic presence of this company on the Brazilian publishing scene had direct

repercussions on the Jabuti award in the 1990s and 2000s. In the "best book of the year"

(fiction and non-fiction) awards, the Companhia had absolute reign. Given that these awards

are based on the evaluations of the publishers and booksellers themselves, it is safe to

conclude that the Companhia's catalogue has the high esteem of its peers. If one considers

the total number of awards handed out in this period, the Companhia is clearly in the lead

(143), well ahead of Edusp (60) and Record (52) (see Annex 2).

The Companhia das Letras' leadership in the awards market is one indication that São

Paulo is replacing Rio de Janeiro as the country's primary publishing capital. São Paulo is

also where publishers like 34, Cosac Naify, Iluminuras and Ateliê are setting up office. There,

they will also contribute to the creation of a kind of "prestigious core" of contemporary

Brazilian publishing. What is more, São Paulo is the city where the major publishers of

textbooks - that dominate a highly lucrative sector - are located. While Rio de Janeiro

continues to be home to prestigious publishing houses like Record and Nova Fronteira, as

well as some newer publishers, it is more focussed on targeting mass markets - best-sellers,

business and self-help books, etc. Thus, it is no coincidence that it ends up occupying a

secondary position in the Jabuti award's overall ranking, even if its presence on the best-

sellers list is guaranteed.

The "Spilt Milk episode" increased friction between the country's two main publishing

capitals, which has been crystallized into the dispute between the Brazilian Book Chamber,

based in São Paulo, and the National Book Publishers Union, in Rio de Janeiro. It also

exacerbated the differences between two opposing political groups: on one side, the

Companhia das Letras with a catalogue that, though not exactly left-wing, has affinities with

progressive thought; on the other, the Record's catalogue, which is much more open to

variations of Brazilian chauvinist thought. Nonetheless, one must not lose sight of what this

episode symbolizes: the dispute between two major Brazilian publishing houses over the

prestige that the Jabuti award is capable of offering.

8

IV

The sequence of deaths of great Brazilian publishers from past decades generated the

conditions needed in order for young publishers to be consecrated prematurely. The dispute

over the new pantheon of the Brazilian publishing field can count on the commitment of those

who are willing to guarantee their place on this altar, and therefore invest in participating in

the Jabuti award, attend the awards ceremony and flaunt their achievements.

Back in the publishing houses, bitter comments can be heard around the water cooler

about how the Jabuti award always finds a way to stand out more than authors and

publishers. The prize is stealing the show from the award-winners. It is as if an immense

turtle on a cumbersome flight, like a Zeppelin, were to fly over an open field, drawing

attention to itself and casting an uneasy shadow on those contemplating it. Some spectators

would be surprised by how high it flies; others, perplexed by the disturbance it causes.

9

REFERENCES

Bourdieu, Pierre. (2006). A produção da crença. Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil: Zouk.

English, James F. (2005). The economy of prestige. Cambridge, MA, EUA: Harvard University Press.

Hallewell, Lawrence. (2005). O livro no Brasil. (2ª. Ed.). São Paulo, SP, Brasil: Edusp.

Sorá, Gustavo. (1997). Tempo e distâncias na produção editorial de literatura. Mana, 3(2), 151-181.

INFORMATION SOURCES

Aguiar, Josélia. (2010, 14 de novembro). O dia do juízo. Folha de S.Paulo, Caderno Ilustríssima p. 6-7.

Azevedo, Reinaldo. (2010a, 5 de novembro). O Prêmio Jabuti e os asquerosos. Blog do Reinaldo Azevedo. Recuperado em 20 de novembro de 2012 de http://veja.abril. com.br/blog/reinaldo/geral/o-premio-jabuti-e-os-asquerosos-1-o-jornalismo-na-fase-alemanha-oriental-no-dia-em-que-o-premio-jabuti-se-transforma-num-espetaculo-de-vigarice-politica/

Azevedo, Reinaldo. (2010b, 12 de novembro). A carta do Grupo Record que denuncia que os jabutis estão em cima das árvores. Blog do Reinaldo Azevedo. Recuperado em 20 de novembro de 2012 de http://veja.abril.com.br/blog/reinaldo/geral/a-carta-do-grupo-record-que-denuncia-que-os-jabutis-em-cima-das-arvores/

Bergamo, Mônica. (2010, 12 de novembro). Salseiro literário. Folha de S.Paulo, p. E2.

Câmara Brasileira do Livro. (2008). Prêmio Jabuti: 50 anos. São Paulo: Imprensa Oficial.

Finotti, Ivan. (2010a, 14 de novembro). Sérgio Machado: “Edney Silvestre foi garfado”. Folha de S.Paulo, Caderno Ilustríssima p. 6-7.

Finotti, Ivan. (2010b, 27 de novembro). Editores sugerem novo Jabuti em 2011. Folha de S.Paulo, p. E8.

Goldfarb, José Luiz. (2012, 19 de novembro). Entrevista concedida ao pesquisador.

Machado, Sérgio. (2010, 9 de novembro). Carta [a Rosely Boschini e a José Luiz Goldfarb]. Recuperado em 20 de novembro de 2012 de http://media.folha.uol.com.br/ ilustrissima/2010/11/12/carta_do_grupo_record.pdf

Rangel, Natália. (2010, 19 de novembro). Saia-justa no Jabuti. Isto É.

Schwarcz, Luiz. (2010, 21 de novembro). Quem garfou Edney Silvestre? Ou como se discute um prêmio literário no Brasil. Folha de S.Paulo, Caderno Ilustríssima, p. 3.

Werneck, Paulo. (2010, 13 de novembro). “Jabuti é concurso de beleza”, diz editor da Record. Folha de S. Paulo. Recuperado em 20 de novembro de 2012 de http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ilustrissima/830386-jabuti-e-concurso-de-beleza-diz-editor-da-record.shtml

10

ANNEX 1

Changings on award categories (1991-2010)

11

ANNEX 2 Number of awards by publishing house – more than 10 awards (1991-2010)

Publishing House Awards Headquarter

Companhia das Letras 143 São Paulo

Edusp 60 São Paulo

Record 52 Rio de Janeiro

Cosac Naify 41 São Paulo

Ática 41 São Paulo

Nova Fronteira 26 Rio de Janeiro

Imprensa Oficial 24 São Paulo

Globo 21 São Paulo

Editora 34 18 São Paulo

Editora da Unesp 17 São Paulo

Rocco 17 Rio de Janeiro

Senac (geral) 17 várias

Atheneu 16 São Paulo

Moderna 15 São Paulo

Ed. Unicamp 13 Campinas

Salamandra 13 Rio-SP

Civilização Brasileira 12 Rio de Janeiro

Objetiva 12 Rio de Janeiro

Perspectiva 12 São Paulo

Bertrand Brasil 11 Rio de Janeiro

Boitempo 11 São Paulo

Contexto 11 São Paulo

FTD 11 São Paulo

Hucitec 11 São Paulo

Iluminuras 10 São Paulo

Makron Books 10 São Paulo

Melhoramentos/DBA 10 São Paulo

Saraiva 10 São Paulo

Scipione 10 São Paulo