Thoughts and questions on the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction

An aberrant year for American fiction's most prestigious prize

Well I’d planned to take this week off from Reading in Public, but I had to pop in with some thoughts about the Pulitzer and see what you all are thinking about this year’s break in form. So let’s chat through it!

This year’s Pulitzer Prize for Fiction spotlighted four books: three finalists and one winner. The finalists were Headshot by Rita Bullwinkle, Mice 1961 by Stacey Levine, and The Unicorn Woman by Gayl Jones; and—to no one’s surprise—James by Percival Everett was declared the winner.

Image from the Pulitzer website.

But as much as James winning was completely expected, this announcement as a whole came as quite a surprise when four books were named as finalists before the winner was crowned. This is a major break in form.

Here’s (to the best of my understanding) how the Pulitzer typically works. A jury of critics, writers, professors, and literary professionals sort through and read the eligible books. The jury changes every year, which means tastes and priorities change from year to year. The jury then presents the Pulitzer Prize Board with three books—the best three books they encountered that fit the Pulitzer guidelines. The Pulitzer for Fiction awards “distinguished fiction published during the year by an American author, preferably dealing with American life.” If there are other instructions given, we are not privy to them. From there, the Board (which unlike the jury remains somewhat consistent) selects a winner from the three books presented.

However, the Board can go a bit rogue. If they see fit, they can name two books the winner, as they did in 2023 with Hernan Diaz’s Trust and Barbara Kingsolver’s Demon Copperhead. They can also give no award, as they did in 2012 leaving a trio of literary titans—Karen Russell, David Foster Wallace, and Denis Johnson—all as mere finalists.

Another option is that if the board does not think any of the three presented titles are worthy of the winner, they can go back to the jury and ask for an additional title, or they can declare their own winner that was not nominated by the jury if they have three-fourths majority vote.

So the fact that there were four total finalists this year means almost definitively that James was not one of the three books initially selected by the jury. Whether this means that, when prompted by the Board, James was the jury’s fourth selection or that the Board voted James in on their own by a three-fourths majority, we may never know. Either way, it’s fascinating to me that this is how it all played out.

Personally, I’m glad the Board maneuvered (in the way their bylaws permit) to ensure that James was the winner. James is, in my mind, a quintessential Pulitzer book. Not only is it distinctly American and “dealing with American life,” it’s dealing with American literature directly, beautifully, and meaningfully.

This whole spectacle makes me think once again that a lot of literary prizes are having a bit of an identity crisis. In a landscape where fewer and fewer people read literary fiction, what are these prizes for? In my mind, they should stick to their missions and award the best, most lasting fiction of the year. Is that subjective? Yes. Is it all speculation? Of course! But that’s why you gather a professional panel to hash it out. It seems to me, however, that more prize panels are thinking of their roles as discovering up-and-coming authors or spotlighting small presses. These are also worthy goals! But things get muddled when new agendas displace what we readers have come to expect from these prizes.

All of that being said, to paraphrase my Pulitzer aficionado pal Tara, it’s pretty fun to get the winner we want and still have some drama to debate. So I’m eating up the speculation while proudly cheering on James, my best book of 2024 and one I truly think will be read for years to come.

I’d love to know your thoughts! Did you think anything was off when four finalists were announced? What’s your read on what happened in this year’s selection process? Would you rather have seen one of the non-James books take home the prize? Or even no prize awarded? And finally, what do you think the mission of these big prizes ought to be?

And now, for your perusal, a list of aberrant Pulitzer years:

• 2025 - James by Percival Everett wins over three additional finalists.

• 2023 - Two winners: Trust by Hernan Diaz and Demon Copperhead by Barbara Kingsolver

• 2015 - All the Light We Cannot See by Anthony Doerr wins over three additional finalists. Interestingly, one of those finalists is The Moor’s Account by Laila Lalami, who served on this year’s jury.

• 2012 - No award given

• 1992 - A Thousand Acres by Jane Smiley wins over three additional finalists.

• 1990 - Only one winner (The Mambo Kings Play Songs of Love by Oscar Hijuelos) and one finalist named.

• 1989 - Only one winner (Breathing Lessons by Anne Tyler) and one finalist named.

• 1979 & earlier - Before 1980, the Pulitzer only announced a winner without the addition of finalists.

• 1964 - No award given.

---

As a reminder, I’m running a sale on annual memberships in May in the lead up to the Paperback Summer Reading Guide, which drops June 1st. Now is the time to upgrade your subscription to ensure you get the guide and all the extra goodies that come along with it. Those include a release party Zoom where I chat through all the books, a behind the scenes podcast on the making of the guide, and deep dive essays into a selection of this year’s books.

You can get an annual membership for just $40 if you sign up this month!

---

For questions, comments, or suggestions, please don’t hesitate to reach out by emailing fictionmattersbooks@gmail.com or responding directly to this newsletter. I love hearing from you!

This email may contain affiliate links. If you make a purchase through the links above, I may earn a small commission at no additional cost to you.

If you enjoyed today’s newsletter, please forward it to a book-loving friend. That’s a great way to spread bookish cheer and support the newsletter!

Happy reading!

Sara