No Pulitzer Prize for Fiction this year

[plib]

Stephen Colbert got a Pulitzer for his "Colbert Superpac" episodes. They could usefully consider what's produced by superpacs as suitable candidates for a fiction prize.

[Rob Lister]

I've never paid much attention to the Pulitzer. I didn't even know they had a fiction category. I thought it was solely for reporting.

Looking through their complete list of fiction winners, there are very few I even recognize, much less read; especially in the latter years. The Executioner's Song by Mailer is the latest. There do seem to be a few no-award years.

[Phogg]

I submit that this thread title is a lie:

Generally after ten years go by and the facts are accurately checked...

We find out the Journalism Pulitzers were fiction.

[J. Strnad]

It seems to me that if they are unable to come up with a winner, they aren't doing the one task they've been assigned. Something is either seriously wrong with the process, or they should start over with new judges.

For some reason I am reminded of the current U.S. Congress....

[ApK]

There have been several years where there has been no winner in fiction (several in the 70's):
http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Fiction

and I see some in other categories as well.

Are this year's circumstances unusual compared to the other years?

[HomeInMyShoes]

Lots of people weren't wowed by A Visit from the Goon Squad, which I've got on my list to read this year. I put Swamplandia! onto my wish list now.

I just looked at the list of Pulitzer's and I've only read three of them? I've got a few on my potential reads list, but that seems crazy that I've only read three.

I'm starting to get some ideas for my 2013 reading challenges.

[carpetmojo]

This suggesting some awards judges are perhaps more open-minded or well read, than others ?


http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...e-7654879.html


Also, 2 articles on the page about interesting details on the Pulitzer process - apparently they have a squad of people who do the hard work (reading lots of books) and deciding on just 3 worthy books which they recommend to the "judges".
No, none good enough, even so.

Some of the judges' panels on other awards read and select from 10 or twenty novels, and obviously read themselves.

[astrangerhere]

Author Ann Patchett discusses her feelings on the situation in an OP/ED for the New York Times: "And the Winner Isn't..."

Let me underscore the obvious here: Reading fiction is important. It is a vital means of imagining a life other than our own, which in turn makes us more empathetic beings. Following complex story lines stretches our brains beyond the 140 characters of sound-bite thinking, and staying within the world of a novel gives us the ability to be quiet and alone, two skills that are disappearing faster than the polar icecaps.

Unfortunately, the world of literature lacks the scandal, hype and pretty dresses that draw people to the Academy Awards, which, by the way, is not an institution devoted to choosing the best movie every year as much as it is an institution designed to get people excited about going to the movies. The Pulitzer Prize is our best chance as writers and readers and booksellers to celebrate fiction. This was the year we all lost.

You can read the full peice here

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

Author Ann Patchett discusses her feelings on the situation in an OP/ED for the New York Times: "And the Winner Isn't..."



You can read the full peice here

I have never cared about the Pulitzer literature awards.

The Hugo, Nebula, and Newbery awards - yes.
The Pulitzers are often long on pretentiousness and short on enjoyable story.

[stonetools]

Its this part of the Ann Patchett piece I find most interesting:

If I feel disappointment as a writer and indignation as a reader, I manage to get all the way to rage as a bookseller.

In November of last year, along with my business partner, Karen Hayes, I opened Parnassus Books in Nashville. The brick-and-mortar bookstore, as people seem to point out to us hourly, is not exactly a thriving business model (though we are doing fine), and the publishing industry, especially since the Department of Justice has decided to be Amazon’s bodyguard, is struggling as well.

So while it’s true that the Pulitzer committee has, since its inception in 1917, declined to award the prize on 10 previous occasions, I can’t imagine there was ever a year we were so in need of the excitement it creates in readers.

The winners are written up in papers and talked about on the radio, and sometimes, at least on PBS stations, they make it onto television. This in turn gives the buzz that is so often lacking in our industry — Did you hear about that book?

With book coverage in the media split evenly between “Fifty Shades of Grey” and “The Hunger Games,” wouldn’t it have been something to have people talking about “The Pale King,” David Foster Wallace’s posthumous masterwork about a toiling tax collector (and this year’s third Pulitzer finalist)? Wallace is not going to have another shot at a win, which makes the fact that no one could make up their minds as to whether or not he deserved it all the more heartbreaking.

[murraypaul]

So they should award a prize just to get publicity and drive sales, even if they don't think the books are good enough?
Isn't that precisely the opposite of what they should be doing?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

So they should award a prize just to get publicity and drive sales, even if they don't think the books are good enough?
Isn't that precisely the opposite of what they should be doing?

No they should fix their process, participants, and devote time to it to do what they should be doing, selecting the best book published based on their criteria.

Originally Posted by murraypaul

So they should award a prize just to get publicity and drive sales, even if they don't think the books are good enough?
Isn't that precisely the opposite of what they should be doing?

Originally Posted by kennyc

No they should fix their process, participants, and devote time to it to do what they should be doing, selecting the best book published based on their criteria.

First I have to admit that I have not read any of the three books that were the potential choices for the award. Therefore I can not comment on the originality or literary merit of any of those books. However, I can understand how not naming any book could make sense. The prize should be not just the best book out of the potential choices if none of the books meet what the selection board considers a level worthy of the prize.

[SteveEisenberg]

. . . the Academy Awards, which, by the way, is not an institution devoted to choosing the best movie every year as much as it is an institution designed to get people excited about going to the movies. The Pulitzer Prize is our best chance as writers and readers and booksellers to celebrate fiction.

If the Pulitzer Prize is about celebrating fiction, than it is just like the Oscars.

There already is a somewhat similar prize that is given every year, regardless of the degree to which a board of judges can agree on a winner. This is the National Book Awards, which was founded by, and is still mostly run by, book publishers and sellers. That's where you would look more for the celebration.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by Phogg

I have never cared about the Pulitzer literature awards.

The Hugo, Nebula, and Newbery awards - yes.
The Pulitzers are often long on pretentiousness and short on enjoyable story.

I'm with Phogg. I've never bought a book because it won a Pulitzer. I've always associated the award with left leaning news organizations, and I think the only Pulitzer winning book I've read was Angela's Ashes (I wanted to read the book and didn't care about the award).