I read the linked article in The Independent today, and thought it may be of interest, especially to those who, like me, were very puzzled by the Pullitzer "jury" recently deciding they couldn't make an award this year.
Because, I believe was stated, nothing was good enough...
Which perhaps indicates that, in their eyes, there is a straightforward, "set in stone" definition of what is a "good" piece of writing.
Which, it would seem, is privy to those who made such a daft decision this year, and told all American writers they aren't up to such exacting standards ?
Anyway, I found this a slightly different slant .........
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...t-7804837.html