Pulitzer committee and jury options -- plenty of options
So, the Pulitzer committee chose not to select a Pulitzer Prize in Fiction.
Baffling.
Disturbing.
Insulting.
Here are just a few of the novels from 2011 that I would have been happy to see win:
The Tiger's Wife
Swamplandia
The Leftovers
The Art of Fielding
11/22/63
The Marriage Plot
State of Wonder
IQ 84.
And that's just off the top of my head. Really: Book publishing needs a Pulitzer -- especially right now!
Baffling.
Disturbing.
Insulting.
Here are just a few of the novels from 2011 that I would have been happy to see win:
The Tiger's Wife
Swamplandia
The Leftovers
The Art of Fielding
11/22/63
The Marriage Plot
State of Wonder
IQ 84.
And that's just off the top of my head. Really: Book publishing needs a Pulitzer -- especially right now!
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Maridith
(new)
Apr 17, 2012 05:15AM
You're absolutely right. There are SO many good books that I've read this year, many in your list. Baffling, indeed.
reply
|
flag
I don't understand why they left out Fiction this year. Makes no sense! And, the titles you came up with Chris were awesome. I've read most of them and loved.
How 'bout...Between Shades of Grey or Catherine the Great? Dissapointing.
Ricky Ricardo said it best... You got some 'splainin to do Pulitzer Committee. I do not understand how one of the three contenders did not have a majority of votes. Am I wrong, or isn't that how Pulitzers are won? I suppose one could consider this non-victory a win for all three, being such diverse pieces of creativity. Just my two cents.
I wish I could agree with Dan to be generous/optimistic and consider it a win for all three finalists, but I can't. I think it's an insult to all three that they were named finalists but none chosen to win. If you're a finalist for such an award and another finalist wins, it's not an insult. By virtue of the winner being named, the finalists are honored having been considered alongside that book. This is a dismissal of those three books and (as if they have the right, really, just being a panel of people chosen subjectively to do this job this year) all the other books of fiction published in the USA this year. If they weren't going to award, it would have been better to name no finalists at all. Shame on the Pulitzer Board for not sending these three panelists back to the table and telling them to do it all over again, and think again. Sometimes it's a hung jury and one or two people's fault. But that's no excuse, finally, for this kind of outcome.
The Leftovers was most definitely Pulitzer Prize worthy.
All of those are prize worthy, along with a few others, are they insane?
After reading Susan Larson's comments in PW Daily, I am even more amazed. I do not know the full rules of Pulitzer voting, but one assumes that the three jury members would send the voting members back to deliberation if a winner is not voted on. Her comments that people will now "read three books instead of one." is a lame cop-out. They claim to have read 300 works of fiction for this year's prize. Does that mean they submitted the top 3 finalists to the 18 member judging panel? I am letting this bother me for good reason, it reflects on the image of the quality of writing today. I say from today forward this egregious mistake never be allowed to happen again with any Pulitzer catagory, not just fiction. IF finalists are submitted for consideration to a juding board, a winner needs to be selected.
I am just shocked that they wouldn't select a book for the award, when there were so many wonderful contenders. Thank you for calling the contenders out for the recognition they so deserve.
They just couldn't bring themselves to give Stephen King a Pulitzer.
