Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
|
"The Pulitzer is too prestigious and crucial an award to book lovers, authors and the publishing industry to be sporadically — and unaccountably — withheld."
But then isn't also too prestigious and crucial an award to be given away to a work that doesn't meet it's standard?
I was also thinking, in that article linked earlier where the author seemed to bash the Academy Awards as not choosing the best movie but only a ploy to get people to see movies, that giving a Pulitzer to a work that didn't deserve it, is similarly, only a way to sell books.
I would not be surprised if "couldn't reach a majority" was just a euphemism for "none of them were good enough." Right or wrong, if that were so, would it have been better to say "You won the Pulitzer by default, we didn't think should have one, but we have to give one out, so...." We'd need asterisks by winner's names?