Constant Reader discussion

Salon > And the Winner Isn't.....

Comments (showing 1-9 of 9) (9 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Sherry, Doyenne (new)

Sherry | 7025 comments An article by Ann Patchett:

message 2: by Sara (new)

Sara (Seracat) | 1648 comments I agree with Patchett completely: lots of good books and there is no winner and the only thing being talked about is Fifty Shades of Grey.


message 3: by Carol (new)

Carol | 6907 comments Some books that win major prizes boggle my mind, while other's are passed over. Who knows the minds of judges, certainly not me. There were some titles Patchett mentioned that sounded like I needed to explore more. No not the Hunger Games or Fifty Shades of Grey.

message 4: by Book Concierge (new)

Book Concierge (TessaBookConcierge) | 791 comments Well said, Ms Patchett!

message 5: by Beth (new)

Beth Thanks for the link! I agree with Book Concierge, well said, Ms Patchett. Of course, she says so many things well ...

message 6: by Ruth (new)

Ruth | 9005 comments PBS Newshour had Patchett on last night to talk about this.

message 7: by Sherry, Doyenne (new)

Sherry | 7025 comments I saw part of that. Switched to the news after she was already talking.

message 8: by Sara (new)

Sara (Seracat) | 1648 comments

Offers a lot of new insight into the process and the lack of award. The jurors are not happy.

message 9: by Michael (new)

Michael (MichaelCanoeist) | 678 comments If no one book can get a majority, it could mean that there were three fantastic books published last year. Or it could mean that there was no one really outstanding one. Judging by recent awards, the latter is the most likely. I'm not sure that a very occasional year without a winner is bad for the award. Or bad, period. It might not be so good for a bookseller, I understand, but maybe there are some promotion possibilities in The Three Books The Pulitzer Committee Could Not Handle.

back to top

unread topics | mark unread