Comments on: The Pulitzer, or lack thereof

By: pandora charms uk

pandora charms uk — Sun, 27 May 2012 01:39:49 +0000

Spot on for the write-up, I really think this web site demands much more concern. Iâ€™ll probably be once more to study much more, thanks for your tips.

By: Julie Nilson

Julie Nilson — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:05:14 +0000

I don’t think I’ve ever bought a book specifically because it won the Pulitzer, but anything that puts book titles out in front of the public eye is usually a good thing. The Pulitzer committee was petty and short-sighted in not awarding a fiction title this year simply because they couldn’t come to a majority decision–I think it’s going to devalue their opinions in the future.

They need to develop a tie-breaking method. Flip a coin or something!

By: Stacey

Stacey — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:48:02 +0000

Thanks to all of your for your insightful commentary. I do think as Patchett and several of you suggest that we all lose on this one. Any chance an author or book has to be given the attention a Pulitzer can provide is one our business desperately needs now more than ever. They should come up with a better system that doesn’t let readers and the public down.

By: Brian Taylor

Brian Taylor — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:08:29 +0000

I tend to agree with what you’ve said. So I’ll just second your comments. Just imagine how the nominated authors feel? They were good enough to be nominated, but not good enough to win. That must suck.

By: Rowenna

Rowenna — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:58:49 +0000

To be honest, I think not awarding a Pulitzer smacks of snobbery. No one would argue that there are Oscar Best Picture flicks that are better than others, and no one would argue that there are Pulitzer-winning books that are better than others. So what’s the harm in selecting this year’s best? Not doing so feels dismissive and elitist, even if the reason is due to simple issues of not reaching a majority.

By: emily

emily — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:40:17 +0000

Yes, I do care. The Pulitzer is important and I keep track of the winners for several reasons, 1) to find out about the best of the best in the genera I write — anti-war historical fiction, 2) to find out what my historical characters might have read years ago.

It’s pretty nice to know that the prize sets up against the Oscars — didn’t know that.

And I agree that other contests, even the simple, simple contests have provisions to break a tie.

By: Tamara

Tamara — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:10:02 +0000

Can we start a campaign to promote the three finalists for a pseudo-Pulitzer? Or to promote books in some other way? Have a contest for the name of this anti-contest? The Reztilup? The Gyllenhaal? The Almost Pulitzer? The Pushitzer? Make it into something fun.

By: Stephanie Scott

Stephanie Scott — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:11:37 +0000

Every other game/contest on earth has a rules for a tiebreaker. Is it really that hard?

By: Megan B.

Megan B. — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:02:56 +0000

I am somewhat bothered by it. If they could not reach a majority decision, would it be so bad to pick two winners? And if they did not think any of the three books were good enough, well, I would be surprised. (I haven’t read them, however, so I can’t really say).

Not choosing a winner seems like a snub toward all fiction writers, regardless of the real reasoning. I think it was a wrong decision, and if the usual process could not produce a winner, they should have figured something out.

By: Ciara

Ciara — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:05:18 +0000

I did read A Visit from the Goon Squad after it won last year. I thought there’s so much hype around this book that there must be something to it. Unfortunately I found it desperately boring. Generally speaking a prestigious award might make me buy a book that I might be in two minds about but it can’t get me to read a book that I wouldn’t ever read otherwise.