Same thing happened in 1974. I'm not sure what the reason is this year, but the panel unanimously voted Gravity's Rainbow for the 1974 and the board refused to honor the jury's decision because they took offense to the book. I see nothing controversial about this year's finalists, but who knows.
I see Rob wrote an article on the same topic over in the Mag part of the site.
It's an outrage to the nominees. I'm probably missing something here about the jury process, etc. but wouldn't you think only titles worthy of the award would be nominated in the first place??
(mind you, I have dated people I would never marry...)
She owns that now. He-he. That is the beauty of doing it first. Or winning a Pulitzer for a novel you did it in.
But I liked it. I thought it made a great short story. It was the best part of the book for me. Well, that and the 'Parrothood' thing.
Choruses are gimmicky. So are truncated chapters. And lists. And incorporating pop. There are a lot of gimmicks.
Words are gimmicks. Gimmicks. I like that word. Sounds funny.
@Sparrow - No shit, on so many levels.
Laura Miller in Salon had this to say about it, "By all accounts, the group could not reach a majority on any of the three titles recommended by the jury. It’s certainly unlikely that enough of them read fiction widely enough to agree on an alternate choice. In that, they truly are representative of American readers, and that bodes worse for our national literature than a year without a Pulitzer winner."
These awards are all bullshit anyway.
Just award all of them the fucking thing.
Or even better, discontinue the idiotic prize. $10,000 ain't shit anyway.
It was a stupid idea to begin with.
It stinks. Pew-litzer.
I always hated the name.
Plus the fucker was Hungarian for god's sake. Hungarian,
There is not a single year, in the last twenty or so, that I would have picked the winning novel as my favorite of the year.
It's a conspiracy anyway.
