why DO we feel we need to be surprised by an award pick? I don't want to be surprised at the Oscars, I hate when obscure films win, so it should be the same for book awards. unless the award is for best discovery, give it to who deserves it, even if we all expect it
The first thing I said to my husband after finishing JAMES was "this will win the pulitzer." Not because I'm an oracle but because Everett DESERVED IT like I cannot think of a more Pulitzer-y book. I'm happy to see the final decision, though the process was weird. I would have been floored by anything else.
I'm just thrilled that Feeding Ghosts by Tessa Hulls won the Pulitzer for Memoir/Autobiography. I thought her book was excellent, but I hardly heard anyone talk about it last year.
I hope that you enjoy it! I went to a talk that she was at and I think that even added to the reading experience to learn more about her process and the book.
A saying going around is that "prizes are the reviews," which feels appropriate when, as you noted, fewer people are reading literary fiction and the review landscape has dwindled.
I’ve seen some discourse about how it would have been this novel thing to have all books by women as finalists but it’s happened three times before I think (88, 95 and 09).
You get the guide and the launch party if you’re a monthly member! But as the other things will release throughout the summer, you’ll only be able to access them as long as you continue your membership! So you could just get the guide and anything else that drops in June or continue to subscribe through the summer for $5/month. I always like to offer an annual discount around this time for those who know they want to stick around for all the summer reading stuff and the year beyond!
I think this whole process is ridiculous and very "ivory tower insider baseball." The entire Board is from one university (Colombia). Rebecca Makkai had some interesting things to say about her experience with it (for The Great Believers) when she came on my podcast (in the bonus episode). Personally, and even though James wasn't for me, I'm glad the Board "went rogue" and chose the book they thought deserved the award rather than limit themselves to 3 finalists chosen by an entirely different group of people. Of all the literary awards, this one feels the most opaque and confusing.
Yes I think the insider baseball element of all prizes is frustrating—though for me it’s more like a puzzle to solve! I remember that episode and loved that she let loose! But my understanding is that the board is not all made up of Columbia faculty. They bring in writers from other publications (NYT, Atlantic, etc) as well as fiction writers (Junot Diaz has a piece today about serving on the board and having to fly to NYC on his own dime for deliberations). But the board does stay the same for a number of years, and I like that! I feel like it gives this prize a real identity when some others feel like a shot in the dark. Also while this one can feel the most opaque because it’s all just announced one day, I actually think they have the clearest publicly posted rules and processes! I have no idea how the Booker works but I know about the 3/4ths majority overrule for this prize 😂 But all in all, yes, prizes are so weird and one day I would like an epic tell-all!
I was happy to see James win, because it's obviously brilliant, but something about leaving three women writers on the table and giving it to a man feels a little off to me. If Everett were less deserving of the prize, I would be a lot more bothered, but it still feels a little icky.
Yes I see this point and even feel this way in theory, but it doesn’t bother me in this situation. I need to read the two books I haven’t (Mice & Unicorn) to speak with complete confidence, but James was the book of the year! I would have been furious if Headshot had won….I don’t think it’s in the same league as James. If something about it irks me it’s that the jury put those other books and authors in this situation rather than the decision the board made. I just can’t feel icky about seeing a Black author who’s published thirty books and been a finalist multiple times finally get his day! That being said, Jones has been a finalist before too and I would love her to get her moment in the sun as well!
That's basically how I feel -- a Black author who has been brilliant for decades getting the awards he deserves? I can't feel bad about that, especially because I absolutely loved that book. The ick is just feeling bad for the women who were nominated. I haven't read any of their books yet, and the only one that was really on my radar was Headshot. James really was the book of the year in every way, and it's such an American book!
Yes to all of this! But being a Pulitzer finalist is not nothing. I'm sure sales for all three of those books spiked this week, and that's great to see!
we've been so conditioned to expect a big surprise out of awards, but I feel like if you're paying attention even slightly it just isn't going to be THAT surprising. More books without huge platforms should be recognized, absolutely, but that doesn't mean the bigger books are inherently unworthy. There's just a lot of good books out there! That's amazing!
Also, I didn't know the ins and outs of the selection process over the years and what four books meant this year — thank you for that juicy insight!
Great points here. I think a good way to indulge a desire to highlight more obscure works while not creating an obligation to give them the prize is to publicize a longlist/shortlist. The Women's Prize and Booker Prizes do this every year, and it's always fun to see others try read as many of the books as possible and discuss them together. This way, that one really obscure book about birdwatching in 1700s Yorkshire or whatever can be nominated and more people will pick it up, even if something like Demon Copperhead is probably going to win (which it did).
I'm in the middle of writing a roundup of all the literary prize lists I tried to sample this year, and I might have been a little crazy for trying to read like 4 shortlists at once, but it was really fun and maybe the Pulitzers should follow suit!
Your comment about prizes having an identity crisis right now is spot on. I don’t really understand how the jury could not include James as one of their three finalists if that’s what happened. In this case because the book is clearly a worthy winner and one that has had both critical and commercial success, and we will look back on as a staple of 2024 reading, I’m glad the board seemed to overrule.
why DO we feel we need to be surprised by an award pick? I don't want to be surprised at the Oscars, I hate when obscure films win, so it should be the same for book awards. unless the award is for best discovery, give it to who deserves it, even if we all expect it
THIS!
The first thing I said to my husband after finishing JAMES was "this will win the pulitzer." Not because I'm an oracle but because Everett DESERVED IT like I cannot think of a more Pulitzer-y book. I'm happy to see the final decision, though the process was weird. I would have been floored by anything else.
Yes, exactly. It's totally deserving! I would have been floored AND furious if something else had won!
I'm just thrilled that Feeding Ghosts by Tessa Hulls won the Pulitzer for Memoir/Autobiography. I thought her book was excellent, but I hardly heard anyone talk about it last year.
Also I just love to see anything graphic win! It gives prestige to a form a lot of people dismiss!
I’ve heard it’s fantastic and I saw it get a lot of love on instagram! It’s have a copy and I’m so excited to read it now!
I hope that you enjoy it! I went to a talk that she was at and I think that even added to the reading experience to learn more about her process and the book.
A saying going around is that "prizes are the reviews," which feels appropriate when, as you noted, fewer people are reading literary fiction and the review landscape has dwindled.
I haven’t heard that saying, but it makes sense! I don’t want it to be that way though!! Reviews should be reviews and prizes should be prizes!
I’ve seen some discourse about how it would have been this novel thing to have all books by women as finalists but it’s happened three times before I think (88, 95 and 09).
Not that I wouldn’t like to see more women winning major fiction prizes, mind you, but it’s hard to argue with this decision.
Yes I wholeheartedly agree here. It's just not the same thing as all the Pauls from the Booker.
Ohhh thank you for tracking that!! I was wondering!
Does this mean that you only get the Summer Reading Guide and the other things if you’re annual and none of them if you’re monthly?
You get the guide and the launch party if you’re a monthly member! But as the other things will release throughout the summer, you’ll only be able to access them as long as you continue your membership! So you could just get the guide and anything else that drops in June or continue to subscribe through the summer for $5/month. I always like to offer an annual discount around this time for those who know they want to stick around for all the summer reading stuff and the year beyond!
I think this whole process is ridiculous and very "ivory tower insider baseball." The entire Board is from one university (Colombia). Rebecca Makkai had some interesting things to say about her experience with it (for The Great Believers) when she came on my podcast (in the bonus episode). Personally, and even though James wasn't for me, I'm glad the Board "went rogue" and chose the book they thought deserved the award rather than limit themselves to 3 finalists chosen by an entirely different group of people. Of all the literary awards, this one feels the most opaque and confusing.
Yes I think the insider baseball element of all prizes is frustrating—though for me it’s more like a puzzle to solve! I remember that episode and loved that she let loose! But my understanding is that the board is not all made up of Columbia faculty. They bring in writers from other publications (NYT, Atlantic, etc) as well as fiction writers (Junot Diaz has a piece today about serving on the board and having to fly to NYC on his own dime for deliberations). But the board does stay the same for a number of years, and I like that! I feel like it gives this prize a real identity when some others feel like a shot in the dark. Also while this one can feel the most opaque because it’s all just announced one day, I actually think they have the clearest publicly posted rules and processes! I have no idea how the Booker works but I know about the 3/4ths majority overrule for this prize 😂 But all in all, yes, prizes are so weird and one day I would like an epic tell-all!
I was happy to see James win, because it's obviously brilliant, but something about leaving three women writers on the table and giving it to a man feels a little off to me. If Everett were less deserving of the prize, I would be a lot more bothered, but it still feels a little icky.
Yes I see this point and even feel this way in theory, but it doesn’t bother me in this situation. I need to read the two books I haven’t (Mice & Unicorn) to speak with complete confidence, but James was the book of the year! I would have been furious if Headshot had won….I don’t think it’s in the same league as James. If something about it irks me it’s that the jury put those other books and authors in this situation rather than the decision the board made. I just can’t feel icky about seeing a Black author who’s published thirty books and been a finalist multiple times finally get his day! That being said, Jones has been a finalist before too and I would love her to get her moment in the sun as well!
That's basically how I feel -- a Black author who has been brilliant for decades getting the awards he deserves? I can't feel bad about that, especially because I absolutely loved that book. The ick is just feeling bad for the women who were nominated. I haven't read any of their books yet, and the only one that was really on my radar was Headshot. James really was the book of the year in every way, and it's such an American book!
Yes to all of this! But being a Pulitzer finalist is not nothing. I'm sure sales for all three of those books spiked this week, and that's great to see!
we've been so conditioned to expect a big surprise out of awards, but I feel like if you're paying attention even slightly it just isn't going to be THAT surprising. More books without huge platforms should be recognized, absolutely, but that doesn't mean the bigger books are inherently unworthy. There's just a lot of good books out there! That's amazing!
Also, I didn't know the ins and outs of the selection process over the years and what four books meant this year — thank you for that juicy insight!
Great points here. I think a good way to indulge a desire to highlight more obscure works while not creating an obligation to give them the prize is to publicize a longlist/shortlist. The Women's Prize and Booker Prizes do this every year, and it's always fun to see others try read as many of the books as possible and discuss them together. This way, that one really obscure book about birdwatching in 1700s Yorkshire or whatever can be nominated and more people will pick it up, even if something like Demon Copperhead is probably going to win (which it did).
I'm in the middle of writing a roundup of all the literary prize lists I tried to sample this year, and I might have been a little crazy for trying to read like 4 shortlists at once, but it was really fun and maybe the Pulitzers should follow suit!
Your comment about prizes having an identity crisis right now is spot on. I don’t really understand how the jury could not include James as one of their three finalists if that’s what happened. In this case because the book is clearly a worthy winner and one that has had both critical and commercial success, and we will look back on as a staple of 2024 reading, I’m glad the board seemed to overrule.